Retrieve agent version

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that `changes` is null for the first version, that older versions report `composition.complete: false` and `changes.attachment_changes_complete: false`, that `skill_ids` and `knowledge_sources` may be null rather than empty, that skill file contents are never included, and that configuration access is required with a `403` otherwise.

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 purpose and usage in the first two sentences, then uses short paragraphs for edge cases and access requirements. Every sentence contributes necessary information without repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the key returned fields (`composition`, `changes`), edge cases such as null values and incomplete snapshots, and the permission model. This is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters, including the meaning of `agent_id` aliases and where `version_id` comes from. The description does not add parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Retrieve one immutable agent version', and specifies the returned content as 'full configuration (`composition`) plus the structured `changes` relative to the version before it.' This clearly distinguishes it from listing versions or retrieving a whole agent, even without naming sibling tools.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to export an agent's configuration or to audit what changed between versions.' It also states a when-not boundary by noting the endpoint is read-only and 'cannot restore or deploy a version.' However, it does not name alternative tools such as `list_agent_versions` for related operations.

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