list_trigger_executions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by noting that the tool returns execution history with status, times, and tokens, but it does not disclose ordering, default pagination behavior, or any other behavioral nuance beyond the schema.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds relevant information: first the operation, then the returned fields.

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 straightforward paginated list tool with rich annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It identifies required trigger_id, pagination, and the nature of the returned history, though a bit more detail about the output shape or default ordering could push it higher.

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%, so the schema fully documents trigger_id, limit, and offset. The description mentions pagination generically, which matches limit/offset, but it does not add detail beyond what the input schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Lista'), a resource ('execuções de um trigger'), and the scope (historical executions with status, times, and tokens). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_trigger_execution by indicating this is a paginated list operation rather than a single-item fetch.

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 to retrieve paginated trigger execution history, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related tools such as get_trigger_execution or get_execution_trace. There are no exclusions or alternative routing instructions.

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