Get Node Version

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, so the description only needs to add operational behavior. It adds the paging mechanism (truncated/next_offset), which is critical for large configurations. It also clarifies that it returns a historical snapshot. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The purpose is stated first, followed by a critical operational detail about pagination. No 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?

For a read-only historical retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the key operational caveat (pagination) and the purpose. It doesn't explain error conditions or version lookup specifics, but those are likely in the output schema or parameter descriptions. Given the complexity, it's adequate.

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 descriptions cover all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about paging that relates to offset and max_lines, but doesn't add new semantic meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't explain the 'group' optional behavior beyond the schema's auto-lookup note.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves the configuration of a node at a specific version, distinguishing it from get_node_config (current config) and list_node_versions (version list). The verb 'get' and resource 'configuration of a node' are specific.

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 implies it's for historical config retrieval but does not explicitly state when to use this over get_node_config or diff_node_versions. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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