get_api_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, what the output format is (e.g., JSON details of the version), or any error conditions (e.g., invalid IDs). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's zero waste, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, or output. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be helpful, but it's not entirely incomplete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 100% description coverage, with clear parameter names and descriptions ('API ID' and 'Version ID'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what an 'API ID' or 'Version ID' is, where to find them, or their format. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get a specific version of an API' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (a specific version of an API), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_api' or 'get_api_versions', but the focus on a 'specific version' provides some distinction. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an API ID and version ID), compare it to similar tools like 'get_api' (for general API info) or 'get_api_versions' (for listing versions), or specify any context for its application. Usage is implied by the name but not explained.

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