get_version

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by revealing what the response contains—before/after data and changed fields—which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key output details. No wasted words or restatement of the title.

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?

This is a simple read-only getter with fully documented required parameters. The description partially compensates for the absent output schema by naming the main response contents, though it does not describe possible error behavior or the overall response envelope. Still, it is adequate for invocation.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of the parameter space, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the schema coverage.

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 ('Retorna') and a clear resource ('versão específica de um recurso'), and it states the distinguishing output ('dados before/after e campos alterados'). This separates get_version from list_versions and compare_versions without needing to inspect the schema.

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 phrase 'versão específica' clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving one version's details rather than listing or comparing versions. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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