daykeeper_flow_versions_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint. The description adds genuine context beyond that: versions are immutable (so a fetched version is a stable snapshot) and this call never triggers execution. That mutation-vs-read disambiguation is the valuable extra.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key qualifier front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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 present, return values needn't be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. But the undefined 'version' parameter and the absence of any routing guidance against sibling tools leave the definition only minimally sufficient.

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 only 50%: flowId is documented in the schema, but 'version' has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning (no explanation of version numbering, ordering, or valid ranges), so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 (Read) and resource (an exact immutable flow version), and adds a scoping word ('exact', 'immutable'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from execution tools via 'does not execute it', though it never names the sibling that retrieves the current flow version (daykeeper_flows_get) directly.

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 'does not execute it' gives a partial usage cue by ruling out the execution path, which is useful. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus daykeeper_flows_get or how to obtain a valid 'version' value, leaving selection to inference.

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