ncloud_functions_get_trigger

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-destructive operation, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds minimal behavioral context (it returns 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what fields or any edge cases). No contradictions with annotations.

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, straightforward sentence of eight words. It's front-loaded and concise with no unnecessary fluff.

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?

With no output schema and a vague description saying only 'detailed information,' the agent does not know what fields the response includes. The description also doesn't clarify the role of the platform parameter in resolving the trigger or any error behavior. For a tool with minimal schema and no output structure, this is insufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (platform and triggerName) are fully documented in the schema. The tool description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline expectation.

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 'Get' with the resource 'detailed information about a specific trigger', clearly indicating a read operation targeting an individual trigger. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_triggers or get_trigger_activation_detail, but the focus on 'specific trigger' is clear enough for a get-by-name operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that list_triggers should be used to enumerate triggers, nor that get_trigger_activation_detail is for activation history. The context is purely implied by the name.

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