vela_list_triggers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it discloses that the response includes tokens and that the tool can be used to construct trigger addresses, plus the corresponding API endpoint.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes the API endpoint as a secondary note. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 list tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core function and a key output detail. However, it leaves the response_format parameter unexplained, which is a minor gap given the schema also lacks a description for it.

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 description coverage is 50%: only app_name is described, while response_format is not. The description does not compensate for the undocumented response_format parameter, nor does it add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain how the parameters affect the call or output.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists an application's webhook triggers and even mentions that the response includes tokens for constructing trigger URLs. This specific verb+resource clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like vela_list_components or vela_list_revisions.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what it does and the API endpoint, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name.

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