get_prompt_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload includes template, parameters, and model config, but says nothing about not-found behavior, workspace scoping, or version-history characteristics. Some added context, but thin beyond the structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite and the return contents. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema and full annotations, the description needs only to establish scope, prerequisite, and what the version payload contains, all of which it does. It could note failure modes (invalid UUID, unknown prompt) but nothing essential to calling it is missing.

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 both parameters documented (prompt_id as ID or slug, version_id as UUID). The description only restates that the lookup is by version UUID; it adds no format or scoping detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (retrieve a specific prompt version) and pins the lookup key to a version UUID, which separates it cleanly from get_prompt (prompt-level) and list_prompt_versions (enumeration) among the siblings.

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 tells the agent to run list_prompt_versions first to obtain the id, which is a real routing rule. It lacks any when-not guidance (e.g., use get_prompt if you only need prompt metadata), so it falls short of a full 5.

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