Show Project File Version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and includes the API endpoint and category, which is useful context but does not expand on behavioral traits like authentication requirements or rate limits. With annotations covering the main concerns, a 3 is fair.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value: what it does, how to use it, and what it returns. Excellent 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?

For a simple read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, required inputs, API reference, and return type. However, it does not mention the pagination parameters (page, per_page) or describe the structure of the returned JSON object, which would be helpful given no 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% with each parameter already documented. The description only restates that id and project_id are required, adding no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 detailed information about a File Version (specific verb+resource). It mentions fetching full details by identifier, which is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as show_project_file or show_company_file_version, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details' but provides no guidance on when not to use it or when alternatives (e.g., list tools) would be better. No exclusion criteria or context for selection from the large sibling list is given.

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