read_reference_doc_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads a historical version and explains how to identify the version, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like permissions required, side effects, or limitations beyond the input format. It is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The description tells the agent where to obtain version numbers and how to use the tool for diff/rollback. However, without an output schema, it does not describe what the tool returns. The name implies the document content, but explicit mention would improve completeness.

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 parameters described), but the description adds significant value by clarifying that 'version' is the integer checkpoint number (from list_reference_doc_versions), not a versionId. This disambiguation is critical for correct usage.

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 one historical version of a reference_doc by checkpoint number, distinguishing from reading by versionId. The verb 'read' and resource 'reference_doc_version' are specific. The sibling set includes many version-related tools, and this one is properly differentiated.

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 notes the tool uses checkpoint numbers, not versionIds, implying an alternative exists. It also suggests a use case ('diff two versions before rolling back'). However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives.

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