ncloud_functions_get_trigger_activations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read operation. The description 'Get activation history' is consistent with read-only. However, it adds no extra behavioral details such as pagination behavior, default ordering, or error conditions. Given the annotation coverage, the description is adequate but not enhanced.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is excessively minimal for a tool with 6 parameters. It could be slightly expanded to include key usage notes (e.g., optional filters) without becoming verbose. Currently it is concise but underinformative.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools with overlapping names, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination, time range constraints, return format, or how results are ordered. The schema describes parameters but not behavioral context like default page size or maximum results.

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%, with clear descriptions for all 6 parameters (e.g., time format, pagination, default platform). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'activation history for a specific trigger'. It differentiates from siblings like ncloud_functions_get_trigger_activation_detail (single activation) and ncloud_functions_get_activations (all activations) by specifying 'for a specific trigger', 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, no context on when not to use it, and no prerequisites or alternative tools. For example, it does not clarify that this lists multiple activations versus getting a single activation detail.

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