get_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint false. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it returns metadata of the current indexed version and that exhaustive historical version tracking is not yet available, which is a behavioral limitation. No contradiction with annotations noted.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the tool's core function and a relevant limitation. There is no redundant or extraneous information; 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, and strong annotations), the description is largely sufficient. It explains the return value (metadata of current version) and a key limitation (no historical versions), while the output schema likely details the return structure. A minor gap is not specifying behavior for invalid act_code, but this is minor given the overall context.

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 input schema has one required parameter, act_code, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not elaborate on what act_code represents or how to use it, relying solely on the schema's field name and title 'Act Code'. Since the description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema, it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 returns metadata of the currently indexed version of a text, which is a specific and distinct purpose. It differentiates from siblings like get_act and get_article by focusing on version metadata and notes the unavailability of historical versions, making its scope 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 conveys clear context: use this tool to get metadata for the current indexed version. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools for historical versions. The usage is implied rather than directly instructed.

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