get_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing a real behavioral trait: text is returned whole by default, and truncation only occurs when text_limit is supplied, exposed via description_truncated and description_length.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the second sentence is dedicated to the only non-obvious parameter. Backticked field names and a line break are slightly noisy but every clause carries meaning; nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious input and the truncation contract. Missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens for an unknown version_id, which is a modest gap rather than a blocker.

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 carry the load — and it fully explains text_limit's semantics (default null means full text, a value caps at N chars, and cut text flags description_truncated with the true length). version_id is left as an obvious integer identifier, which is a minor gap but low risk.

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 and resource ('Get a version by id') plus scope ('including its full description'), so it is clearly a single-item fetch. It contrasts implicitly with list_versions through the 'single versions are not truncated' note, but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is clear you need a version_id to call it, and the truncation note hints this is the detailed single-record read versus list_versions. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_versions or update_version, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are described.

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