get_prompt_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares the operation as read-only and describes the return contents ('messages, model, provider, and LLM parameters'). This discloses the non-destructive nature and output structure, though it omits potential authentication or rate limit details.

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 clear sentences plus a structured Args list. The main purpose is front-loaded, every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With an output schema present and low complexity (3 required string params), the description adequately covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return content. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by listing Args with meanings: 'The Freeplay project ID', 'The prompt template ID', 'The version ID to retrieve'. This adds essential semantic context beyond the bare 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?

The description starts with 'Get the full contents of a prompt template version', clearly identifying the verb (get) and resource (prompt template version). It distinguishes from siblings like create_prompt_version and get_deployed_prompt_versions by specifying it retrieves a specific version's full contents.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to inspect a version before making changes', providing a clear when-to-use context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient guidance.

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