parent_software_version_by_number

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, making safety clear. The description adds value by specifying the 404 error on unknown versions and describing the return shape. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. The spec link provides additional detail without bloating the main text. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description defines the return shape by referencing `version_by_build` and listing fields. Error behavior (404) is covered. The spec link fills any remaining gaps. It is fairly complete for a simple lookup tool, though it could mention rate limits or auth requirements more explicitly.

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 has two parameters (versionNumber, parentSoftwareId) with 0% schema description coverage. The description partially compensates by explaining that versionNumber is a human-readable version number and the endpoint path shows both parameters' roles. However, it does not explicitly describe each parameter or what parentSoftwareId represents, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a parent-software version by its human-readable version number'. It includes the specific endpoint path and an example ('11.3.8'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `version_by_build` by noting the same record shape but a different lookup method.

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 usage context by indicating the lookup by version number and the HTTP 404 behavior for unknown versions. It implies an alternative (version_by_build) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not or prerequisites.

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