Contract Testing: Get Deployed Versions for Version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's 'retrieve' is consistent. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or error conditions beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact, with one sentence, a toolset header, and a parameter list. The parameter list is redundant with the schema, but overall the structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with 3 required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but does not explain what the returned deployment records contain or any return structure, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter names and types but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already contains (e.g., 'UUID of the environment' is identical to the schema description).

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 states the tool retrieves deployment records for a specific pacticipant version in a specific environment, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_currently_deployed_versions by specifying a particular version and environment.

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 like get_currently_deployed_versions or get_released_versions_for_version. It notes a toolset but does not explain selection criteria or when not to use this tool.

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