get_queue_version

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond that – no detail on what a queue version contains, error behavior for a missing id, or return shape. For a read-only lookup this is tolerable but the description contributes no 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than deliberately minimal.

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 tool with no output schema this is roughly the minimum viable definition. It is missing guidance on sourcing the versionId and any distinction from get_queue_versions, both of which the agent would need to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 50%: 'fields' is documented in the schema, but versionId has no description. The phrase 'by id' only loosely connects to the required versionId parameter and adds no format or type meaning beyond the schema's 'number'.

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?

States a specific verb (get), resource (queue version) and cardinality ('one ... by id'), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list tool get_queue_versions. It does not, however, name or explicitly distinguish itself from that sibling or from update_queue_version/delete_queue_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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a single-record lookup versus get_queue_versions for listing.

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