ncloud_functions_get_trigger

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: the API returns no time-zone field, cron expressions are evaluated in KST (UTC+9, live-verified), and the response includes a cronFormat note for cron triggers. This helps the agent interpret time-sensitive data correctly. No contradiction 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 two sentences, tightly packed with useful information. The purpose is front-loaded, and the timezone clarification is a separate sentence. No redundant or filler content. Every clause adds value.

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 simple getter with two parameters (both documented in schema), the description covers the essential output fields and a critical timezone caveat. It lacks an explicit statement about the response structure (no output schema), but the described fields are sufficient for typical usage. The read-only nature is covered by annotations. Minor gaps like error handling or required parameters are already in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, both parameters (platform and triggerName) have descriptive text. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. The cron expression note pertains to the output (execOption), not input parameters. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a trigger' and enumerates the returned fields (type, description, linked actions, execOption). It also specifies the cron expression format for cron triggers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_triggers (list vs. specific get) and invoke/delete/create 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_triggers for enumerating triggers, or get_trigger_activations for execution history). Usage context is implied by the 'Get a trigger' phrasing, but no when-not or alternative guidance is provided. The read-only nature is clear from annotations, but no explicit selection criteria are given.

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