get_package_version_for_authenticated_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the return content (package-version object with id, name, timestamps, and type-specific metadata) and the required auth scope. Though it doesn't explicitly say 'read-only,' the verb 'Get' and lack of side effects imply safety. It could be more explicit about error cases or read-only nature, but it provides meaningful transparency beyond the schema.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by valuable details about return format, related tool, and auth scope. Every sentence earns its place, and the doc link is a useful addition without clutter.

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?

Given the simplicity of the get operation and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It explains the return object fields, mentions the necessary auth scope, and points to the sibling tool for finding IDs. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately covers the expected return structure.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides for package_name, package_type, and package_version_id. It does indirectly guide usage by referring to the list tool for getting version ids, but that is more about workflow than parameter meaning.

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 action ('Get a specific version of a package owned by the authenticated user') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly referencing list_package_versions_for_authenticated_user for finding version ids. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinct.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative by stating 'Use list_package_versions_for_authenticated_user to find version ids.' It also includes a prerequisite (Requires the read:packages token scope) which helps the agent determine readiness and eligibility.

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