whodb_platform_app_version_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the per-call targeting nuance: workspace does not change session defaults. Useful, but no info on pagination, return shape, or what 'promoted' vs draft means.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoping constraint. No waste, though very short for a five-parameter, nested-object tool.

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 5 params, nested workspace object, and no output schema, the description is thin. It resolves the workspace targeting question but leaves the core 'which version/id/env combination' and sibling differentiation to the schema, which is adequate but not strong.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description confirms the workspace object is per-call only and that it overrides session defaults set by whodb_platform_session_use, which is additive context, but it does not explain id vs version vs env semantics beyond the schema.

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+resource: reading a promoted hosted app version. Clear enough on its own, but 'promoted' and its distinction from siblings like whodb_platform_app_views, whodb_platform_app_view, and whodb_platform_active_version is not explained, so an agent must guess which app-view variant to pick.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative naming. The crowded sibling set (app_view, app_views, app_files, app_components, object_versions, active_version) means an agent gets no routing signal. The only guidance is implicit in the workspace text about defaults.

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