read_workflow_version

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden but only discloses the read behavior and parameter style. It doesn't discuss side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but no contradictions exist.

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 filler, front-loaded with the action and key detail about the checkpoint number.

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?

While the description lacks output format details, it is complete enough for a simple read operation with two well-described parameters; the lack of output schema is not addressed but acceptable.

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 already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage), but the description adds value by clarifying that 'version' comes from list_workflow_versions and is not a versionId, aiding correct parameter selection.

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 workflow version by checkpoint number, and explicitly distinguishes it from using versionId, differentiating it from sibling tools like read_workflow and list_workflow_versions.

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 provides a specific use case ('diff two versions before rolling back') and distinguishes the version parameter type, giving clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it.

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