list_triggers

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 agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful domain context ('Triggers disparam execuções de agentes automaticamente') but does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination, ordering, or response shape.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary function appears first, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying the domain purpose of triggers.

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 read-only list operation with fully documented optional parameters and safety covered by annotations, this description is nearly complete. Minor missing details like pagination or field ordering could help, but they are not essential for correct tool selection.

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 already documents all three optional filters (enabled, agent_id, trigger_type). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, which keeps this at the baseline score.

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 'Lista todos os triggers do tenant', giving a specific verb, resource, and tenant scope. This distinguishes it from singular/action siblings like get_trigger, create_trigger, and delete_trigger.

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 conveys that this is the tool for retrieving all triggers within the tenant, which is clear context for typical list scenarios. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous and no competing list-trigger sibling exists.

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