Describe Trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'gets', but does not explicitly state safety, permission requirements, or error behavior. This is adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, tight sentence that efficiently packs the action, target, and key details. There is zero waste and the content is front-loaded with the verb and subject.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It enumerates the key returned fields, giving the agent a good preview of what to expect, though it omits typical caveats like pagination or error handling, which are not critical for this simple case.

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 single parameter 'triggerName' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) as 'Name of the trigger to describe'. The tool description adds no additional meaning or format details, 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 clearly states the verb 'gets' and the resource 'specific trigger' while enumerating the returned details (source code, type, sequence, status). This directly distinguishes it from sibling describe tools (e.g., describe-table, describe-procedure) by focusing on triggers.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list-triggers or describe-package. The description neither qualifies usage context nor excludes any cases, offering no direction for selection.

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