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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read, so the description does not need to repeat safety semantics. It adds useful behavioral context: format_version is independent of the game version, and the tool is an up-front prerequisite for behavior pack authoring, preventing a common conceptual misuse.

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?

Three sentences, each informative: the returns are enumerated in the first, the format_version caveat in the second, and practical usage in the third. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description enumerates precisely what the agent can expect to learn: min_engine_version, module versions, format_version values, and document types. Combined with the schema and read-only annotation, nothing critical is missing for correctly invoking this tool.

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 schema describes the single optional version parameter with 100% coverage, including format and rejection of marketing numbers. The description only reiterates that the tool is scoped to 'this game version,' so it adds little beyond the schema—hence the baseline 3.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and names a precise resource: version-number mappings for a given game version, including min_engine_version, module versions, format_version values, and document types. This concrete enumeration differentiates it from sibling tools like get_schema, which would retrieve schema definitions rather than version mappings.

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?

It explicitly states when to call: 'Call this before writing any behavior pack file.' It does not discuss when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the directive is clear and actionable.

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