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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the tool is a read-style version query, what it returns, and the upgrade-approval workflow it feeds. It omits auth/permission requirements and failure behavior, but for a simple version-check read that is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste, front-loading what the tool returns before the usage guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values, and it lists all three version values it provides, plus the call cadence and follow-up action. Adequate for this simple, parameterless read tool.

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 zero parameters, so per the baseline rule a 4 applies. There are no parameters whose semantics need explaining, and the description correctly adds none.

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 ("Return") and three concrete resources (minimum testchimp skill version, minimum @testchimp/cli version, bot event schema version). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get-bot-profile, register-bot-profile, and ack-bot-events; an agent can tell exactly what it yields without opening any 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?

Explicitly says when to call it ("on bot startup / daily") and what to do with the result (ask user to approve an upgrade if local skill or CLI is older). It gives clear operational context but names no exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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