read_tool_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Read one historical version'), which implies no destructive side effects. It adds context about the input source (checkpoint number from list_tool_versions) and the intended use for diffing, helping the agent understand expected behavior.

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, no filler. First sentence defines the action and input format. Second sentence provides a concrete use case. Every word earns its place. Front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., the structure of the tool version object). For a read tool, agents might benefit from knowing what fields are returned. However, the purpose and usage are clear enough for basic selection. Missing output details slightly reduces 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% with clear descriptions for both params. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining that 'version' is the checkpoint number (not versionId) and comes from the 'version' field in list_tool_versions. This disambiguation is crucial for correct invocation.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Read' and resource 'historical version of a tool'. It distinguishes from other version-reading tools by specifying the input is a checkpoint number from list_tool_versions, not a versionId. The phrase 'Use it to diff two versions before rolling back' further clarifies purpose.

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?

Explicitly states a use case: 'Use it to diff two versions before rolling back'. This gives the agent clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the differentiation from versionId is implied. A more explicit exclusion of when not to use would be ideal.

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