Get Version

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate read-only behavior. It adds meaningful context by disclosing the exact fields returned and the dependency on project context. The mention of rowVersion also clarifies that this read operation returns a token for future edits, without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated separately. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple read-only get operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and the required project context. It could be even more complete by pointing to how to set the project context or how to locate versionId, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already fully explains specId and versionId. The description reinforces that this targets a single version, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get one spec version') and enumerates exactly what is returned: status, release notes, alias, publish and deprecation timestamps, and rowVersion. This clearly distinguishes it from list_versions or compare_versions by emphasizing a single version retrieval.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: when a single version's full metadata is needed, especially the rowVersion required for editing. It also states the prerequisite 'Requires project context.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the single-version framing implies the contrast with list_versions.

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