Get a version

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating versions are immutable and that the endpoint returns metadata only, not code. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The primary function is front-loaded, and the routing to the sibling tool is a single clear clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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 metadata retrieval tool with complete schema documentation and strong annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and the key alternative. It does not specify an output schema, but listing the returned fields directly compensates for that. Minor gap: no mention of error conditions, but this is not critical for such a simple read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents script_id and version_number. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema carries the burden. 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('one immutable version by its number'), and explicitly lists the returned fields (versionNumber, description, createTime). It also distinguishes itself from get_project_content by clarifying this endpoint returns metadata only, so an agent can clearly tell them apart.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (get_project_content) and gives the exact condition for choosing it: when you need the code of that version instead of metadata. This is a clear when-and-when-not directive with no inference required.

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