ncloud_functions_get_action_activations

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as pagination defaults, max page size, ordering of results, or platform dependency. It does not contradict the read-only annotation, but it fails to disclose any additional behavioral traits.

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 one succinct sentence with no filler words. It clearly communicates the core function in eight words, earning a high score.

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?

Given the presence of multiple similar sibling tools and the absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse to fully orient an agent. It does not explain what data is returned, default time window, pagination behavior, or how it differs from get_activations and get_trigger_activations, leaving a significant gap.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 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 'Get activation (execution) history for a specific action' clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (activation history), and scope (specific action). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ncloud_functions_get_action_activation_detail by focusing on history rather than a single activation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool instead of the related ncloud_functions_get_activations, ncloud_functions_get_trigger_activations, or ncloud_functions_get_action_activation_detail. The description lacks context about prerequisites, time filtering behavior, or how this differs from other history endpoints.

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