ncloud_functions_get_trigger_activation_detail

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates that this is a safe read operation, so the bar is lower. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the fact that it retrieves a specific activation; it does not disclose what fields will be returned, any permission requirements, or rate limit considerations. It is not contradictory, but adds minimal value beyond the annotation.

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, clear sentence that delivers the core purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, with every word contributing to meaning.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should provide more detail about what 'detailed information' means or what the response contains. It also lacks context on how to obtain activationId, which is a required parameter. The schema and readOnly annotation provide some completeness, but the description alone leaves the user guessing about the return payload and the relationship to the list operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage: all three parameters (platform, triggerName, activationId) include meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already explains the purpose of each parameter, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 detailed information about a specific trigger activation' clearly states a specific verb (get) and resource (trigger activation), and the qualifier 'specific' distinguishes it from list-style siblings like ncloud_functions_get_trigger_activations. It also aligns with the name, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the single-item detail counterpart to ncloud_functions_get_trigger_activations, nor does it describe any prerequisites such as obtaining an activationId first. The only clue is the word 'specific' in the description, which is implicit rather than explicit.

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