read_flow_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden. It accurately indicates a read operation (non-destructive) but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or what happens on missing version. Adequate for a simple read tool but missing some behavioral context.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The key differentiator (checkpoint number vs. versionId) is front-loaded, and the use case is given. 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?

No output schema is provided, so the description could explain return values or error states. It does not mention what the tool returns or any limitations. For a read tool this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% (both params documented in schema). The description adds value by clarifying that the 'version' parameter is an integer checkpoint number from the list_flow_versions tool's 'version' field, providing context beyond the schema definition.

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 reads a historical version of a flow by its checkpoint number, distinguishing it from reading by versionId. It also provides a use case (diffing before rollback), making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 gives a clear usage context ('diff two versions before rolling back') and explicitly states the tool uses checkpoint number, not versionId. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare directly to siblings like 'read_flow' or 'list_flow_versions', but the guidance is strong enough for most agents.

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