apps_script_get_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'immutable' which describes the version resource, not the tool's behavior. It does not add context like auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects, but given the annotations, the bar is lower. 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It immediately communicates the action and resource, and the word 'immutable' adds a meaningful qualifier without bloat. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 getter with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It does not mention the return value, but for a read operation, that may be inferred. It also fails to explain how to obtain the scriptId or how versionNumber relates to the list of versions. Given the simplicity, it is minimally sufficient, but a bit more context on parameters 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema only provides names and types. The description does not explain what scriptId and versionNumber mean or where to find them. Although the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (scriptId likely refers to the script's ID, versionNumber is the version to fetch), the description provides no additional context, and the low coverage means the description should compensate, which it does not.

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 action 'Get' and the resource 'immutable Apps Script version', which is a specific, singular entity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apps_script_list_versions (which lists all versions) and apps_script_create_version (which creates a new one). The verb-resource pair is unambiguous.

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 implies usage: when you need a specific version by its versionNumber, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over listing versions or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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