get-trained-model-version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but does not mention return format, error handling, permissions, or any operational details. This is a minimal description that leaves the agent with little insight into the tool's behavior.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, clearly earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with one parameter and no output schema. The description does not mention what the response will contain or any edge cases (e.g., missing IDs). It is minimally acceptable for a simple retrieval but could be more complete by indicating return value details or usage context.

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 schema defines a single string parameter 'version_id' with no description. The tool description adds that it targets a 'specific trained model version', providing some context that the ID refers to a model version. However, it does not explain the ID format, how to obtain it, or any validation constraints.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('specific trained model version'), making the purpose evident. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'get-trained-model-versions' via the word 'specific', but it does not explicitly reference the alternative.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-trained-model-versions' or other get tools. It simply states the action without any context or exclusions.

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