ncloud_functions_get_trigger_activations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as pagination or time-filter behavior (though these are in the schema). It does not contradict annotations, but also does not enrich the behavioral profile beyond what structured data already provides.

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, short sentence ('Get activation history for a specific trigger') that is front-loaded and contains zero filler. It delivers the core purpose efficiently and scores high on conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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?

The tool is a read-only list operation with a well-documented schema and an explicit readOnlyHint. While the description is minimal, the presence of full parameter descriptions and safe-read annotations makes it adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly. It could mention return format or pagination, but those are not critical given the schema.

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 for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'for a specific trigger' aligns with the required triggerName parameter but adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already documents. With full schema coverage, no compensation is needed.

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 ('Get') and resource ('activation history') scoped to 'a specific trigger', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trigger_activation_detail or get_activations. It is specific and actionable, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies the use case: retrieving activation history for a trigger. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives (e.g., get_trigger_activation_detail for details of a single activation). The context is clear but lacks exclusions, so it falls short of explicit guidance.

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