Read one stored kit version

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the response is large, that version numbers are immutable, that the tool returns the entire payload, and that it is gated like an export (403 for unentitled Pro kits). It also states the required scope ('Needs kits:read'). This is rich, non-obvious 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?

The description is four sentences, each conveying essential information without redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance and critical behavioral notes in a logical flow. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains response size, permissions, gating behavior, and the distinction from diff_kit_versions. Users can accurately predict what the tool will do and what constraints apply.

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 100%, with both slug and version having detailed descriptions. The tool description adds a small note about version permanence, but the schema already explains version 0 and positive integers. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the full snapshot of a specific stored kit version, using specific language like 'full snapshot' and 'as it was at that moment.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from diff_kit_versions, which addresses a different need, so it is well-differentiated from 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?

It states exactly when to use this tool ('when you need the old values themselves') and when to prefer an alternative ('diff_kit_versions is the cheaper answer when you only need to know what moved'). It also provides context about size and gating, which helps decide when to invoke it.

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