vela_list_triggers

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns tokens that can be used to construct trigger URLs, providing extra context beyond annotations. No contradictions are present.

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: two sentences covering the core purpose and API reference. No redundant words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 required param, simple read operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. However, it lacks parameter explanations and does not mention pagination or other behavioral details, leaving minor gaps that could be filled.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters; according to context, schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the parameters at all—it neither describes app_name nor the response_format option. This forces the agent to rely solely on schema field descriptions, which are minimal, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 webhook triggers for an application, including tokens for constructing trigger URLs. It specifies the corresponding API endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous. Among sibling list tools, it uniquely targets triggers, avoiding confusion.

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 implies usage for listing triggers but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to create vs list). No exclusions or context for not using it are given, which is acceptable for a simple read-only list but could be improved.

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