get_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, but no further behavioral traits (e.g., no side effects, no network calls) are disclosed. It does not contradict anything, but it's minimal.

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 concise sentence, perfectly front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no complex behavior), the description is sufficiently complete. It does not explain the return format, but for a version check this is generally obvious and the description covers the essential context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is vacuously fully covered. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no conflicting information.

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 ('Get') and resource ('installed Claude Code CLI version'), making its purpose crystal clear. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools which all relate to chat/session management.

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 implies usage (when you need to know the CLI version) but provides no explicit context, alternatives, or when-not-to-use guidance. For a trivial version-check tool this is acceptable but still lacks the explicit guidance that would merit a higher score.

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