get_golden_loop_catalog_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds a small amount of meaningful context with 'immutable' and 'exact', reinforcing the read-only, deterministic behavior, but does not disclose anything beyond what the annotations already imply.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no filler or redundant wording. Every word ('exact,' 'immutable,' 'declaration IDs') earns its place and adds scoping not visible elsewhere.

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 three-string read with strong read-only annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves the term 'Spring catalog' unexplained and does not position this against the closely related get_golden_loop_declaration_version tool, so an agent has to infer some context from the sibling list.

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 description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not. It mentions 'catalog_version_id' only implicitly through 'one exact... catalog,' and it gives no added meaning for company_ref or project_ref. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 has a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('Spring catalog'), and a strong scoping qualifier ('one exact immutable'). It conveys that this fetches a single catalog version plus its declaration IDs, which separates it from broad list or mutation tools. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling get_golden_loop_declaration_version, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Read one exact' implies the tool should be used when the caller already has a specific catalog_version_id and wants the immutable version, not a list or mutation. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer related tools like get_golden_loop_declaration_version or register_golden_loop_catalog.

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