grok_version

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

Description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns the installed version. No annotations are present, but the description covers all relevant aspects (read-only, no side effects). For a tool of this simplicity, transparency is complete.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and avoids any unnecessary words. Every part of the description is meaningful and 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 the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated) and zero parameters, the description is complete. It suffices for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage without ambiguity.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter descriptions are needed. Description does not add anything beyond the schema, but baseline for 0 params is 4.

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?

Tool name 'grok_version' and description 'Return the installed Grok CLI version' clearly identify the verb (Return) and resource (Grok CLI version). It is distinct from sibling tools like grok_ask, grok_code_review, and grok_continue.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, the simple nature of a version check and the sibling tools' different purposes make usage obvious. Could be improved by mentioning that it requires no arguments and is safe to call anytime.

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