clawdate_version

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is public and requires no authentication, which is valuable behavioral context. It also implies the return is a version string for comparison. No side effects are mentioned, but for a read-only operation, this is adequate.

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, both front-loaded with essential information: action, resource, public nature, and usage advice. No wasted words, perfectly concise.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description is complete. It tells what the tool does, how to use the result, and that it's publicly accessible. No gaps remain.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter info, but there is nothing to add. Baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description fulfills the need without redundancy.

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?

Description explicitly states the verb 'Check', the resource 'current Clawdate skill/API version', and adds clarifying context about being public and requiring no auth. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which are version checks.

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?

Provides specific usage context: 'Compare with your cached version to know if you need to re-read skill.md.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it doesn't list alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it. For a simple version check, this is sufficient.

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