get_design_version

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavior burden. It discloses the tool is read-only ('retrieve'), lists return fields (source_scad, prompt, parameters, notes, parent_version), and notes error behavior if version doesn't exist. Missing details like no side effects or performance impact, but those are implicit.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, parameter details, and return info. It avoids redundancy, though the return section could be slightly shorter. Overall, every sentence adds value.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers: purpose, when to use, parameter format, return content, and error behavior. It is fully adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 must compensate. It explains the version_id format with examples (e.g., 'my-coaster:3') and disambiguates between a plain integer and prefixed reference, adding significant value beyond the schema's simple string type.

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 'Retrieve a single design version by its ID,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_design_versions, save_design_version, and rollback_design_version by focusing on a single version retrieval.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to inspect the full source code, parameters, and notes for a specific version when you already know the version reference.' This tells the agent when to use it and implies when not (e.g., not for listing or modifying). It also explains the version_id format.

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