get--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name-versions-version_nam

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns data or metadata, or any error conditions. 'Get a version' implies retrieval but lacks details on response format, rate limits, or side effects, making it inadequate for a tool with 3 required parameters.

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 extremely concise with just three words, but this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective communication. While front-loaded, it lacks necessary detail, making it inefficient for the agent's understanding. It avoids redundancy but at the cost of clarity.

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 complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'version' is in this context, how parameters interact, what data is returned, or any behavioral aspects. This leaves critical gaps for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning none of the 3 parameters (domain_name, template_name, version_name) are documented in the schema. The description 'Get a version' adds no semantic meaning about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they represent, their format, or how they relate to retrieving a version. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Get a version' is a tautology that restates the tool name's 'get' action without specifying what resource 'version' refers to. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name-versions' which likely lists versions, nor does it clarify what kind of version (e.g., template version) is being retrieved. The purpose remains vague beyond the basic verb.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a domain, template, and version name, nor does it differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name' or 'get--v3-domain_name-templates'. This leaves the agent with no context for tool selection.

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