list_triggers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the listing returns (type, triggering event, target table, status), which is real behavioral value, but it says nothing about volume, pagination, whether disabled triggers are included despite the status column, or required privileges for reading the trigger catalog.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields before the terse parameter note. Nothing is wasted, though the fragment 'Optional schema.' is partially redundant with the schema description and could have carried more information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the field enumeration effectively substitutes for a return-value description, so an agent knows what it gets back. Remaining gaps (ordering, disabled-trigger inclusion, privileges) are minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'schema' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself ('Omit to search all schemas'), so the description's 'Optional schema.' only restates optionality. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('triggers') and goes further by enumerating the returned fields (type, triggering event, target table, status). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_* tools such as list_sequences or list_views by resource alone, though it never explicitly names or contrasts an alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Optional schema.' implies the usage pattern of scoping to one owner or omitting to scan everything, and there is no sibling alternative for triggers to route the agent away from. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no note about what omitting the schema returns in practice, and no mention of disabled/invalid triggers.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.