get_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention whether a connection or configuration is required. It adds the scope 'settings and status' but leaves the exact behavioral profile implicit.

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 sentence with the action verb first and the target resource immediately after. It contains no filler or redundant phrases, making it highly scannable and appropriately sized for a trivial getter.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description gives only a high-level indication of what is returned. It does not enumerate which trigger settings or what status fields are included, and with no annotations or output schema, an agent has limited information to anticipate the response shape. Additional detail about return contents would make it complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details that do not exist.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource 'trigger' with the scope 'settings and status.' This clearly differentiates it from configure_trigger, which modifies trigger settings, and from broader getters like get_state, so an agent can select it without needing to open schemas.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus configure_trigger or get_state, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the bare description.

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