get_prompt_version_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only retrieval operation and enumerates the complete response structure, including messages with role/content and model settings. It does not discuss auth or error scenarios, but for a simple detail-fetch tool the return-value transparency is strong.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence followed by a structured bullet list of returned fields. The length is justified because there is no output schema to document return values, and the list is well-organized rather than repetitive.

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?

Because no output schema is present, the description fully compensates by documenting all key return fields, including the nested messages array and metadata. It also provides the required lookup workflow, making the tool self-contained for an agent to invoke 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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, including provenance hints like 'from list_prompt_versions.' The description adds a usage sentence reinforcing that connection, but it does not materially extend parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Retrieve detailed information about a specific version of a prompt,' which pairs a specific verb with a clearly scoped resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prompt_detail and list_prompt_versions by focusing on version-level detail.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite workflow: 'Use list_prompts to find prompt_id, then list_prompt_versions to find the version number.' This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools beyond the prerequisite chain.

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