get-version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a safe read operation, what happens if the version is not found, rate limits, or what specific details are returned. The phrase 'Get version details' implies data retrieval but lacks explicit safety or behavioral context.

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 single sentence wastes no words and immediately states the core function. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is arguably under-sized for the tool's complexity, though the sentence itself is efficiently constructed.

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 tool with three simple string parameters and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema provided, the description should ideally characterize the returned version details (e.g., deployment metadata, commit info). The absence of this information leaves a gap in contextual completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context (e.g., valid formats for version strings, environment constraints), but the schema adequately documents all three parameters including the optional nature of 'project' and default for 'environment'.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('version details for a Rollbar project'). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'get-deployments' or clarify what constitutes a 'version' in the Rollbar context (e.g., code deployment vs. API version).

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 like 'get-deployments', nor does it mention prerequisites such as project configuration requirements. Zero guidance on selection criteria or exclusions.

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