Get Version

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent hints, and the description adds contextual value by noting the version is an 'immutable snapshot' and enumerating the exact fields returned. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not discuss auth or rate limits, which are not critical for a read-only getter.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'Get' and immediately specifies the resource and the key details returned. Every clause contributes useful information, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity, strong annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description fully conveys the scope of information returned by explicitly listing the expected fields (bindings, compatibility date/flags, handlers, usage model). This makes the tool's behavior complete and predictable for an agent.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (script_name and version_id) with clear descriptions, including a helpful note that version_id comes from list_versions. The description itself does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Get), the resource (a Worker version's detail), and the specific content returned (bindings, compatibility date/flags, handlers, usage model). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_versions (which lists versions) and get_worker (which gets the Worker itself) by focusing on a specific immutable version snapshot.

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 implies usage for retrieving details of a specific Worker version, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_versions or get_worker. No when-not guidance or alternative tool references are provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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