get_trigger

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some value by specifying the returned content (configuration and statistics), but it does not describe error behavior, permissions, or other behavioral details.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the action, resource, and the scope of returned data without unnecessary words.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description is adequate: it states what the tool returns and that it covers configuration and statistics. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly mentioning that it fetches one trigger by ID, but the schema supplies that detail.

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 100%: the only parameter, trigger_id, is already documented as a UUID. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('um trigger'), and adds that it returns complete details including configuration and statistics. This is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_triggers or get_trigger_execution.

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 the tool is used when complete details of a single trigger are needed, and the required trigger_id clarifies the by-ID usage. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_triggers or test_trigger.

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