get_script_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one useful behavioral fact beyond that: the tool returns the entire text rather than metadata. It says nothing about size limits, pagination, or error behavior for an unknown version id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and it leads with the verb and the payload ('full text'). It is efficient, though arguably too thin to be maximally useful.

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 only two parameters, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the definition is serviceable. But there is no output schema, and the description only vaguely gestures at the return value ('full text') without noting scope or failure modes, leaving a modest gap.

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 100%, so both 'session' (with its rename-tolerant path note) and 'version' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or provenance detail beyond the schema's own note that the id comes from the history list. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 gives a clear verb ('Get') and result ('the full text'), making the operation unambiguous. However, it says 'one saved version' without naming the script resource or distinguishing it from siblings like script_history (which enumerates versions) or restore_script_version (which mutates).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. At best the purpose implies you invoke it when you want to read a version's text, which is a tautology rather than guidance.

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