current_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only operation (returning info, no side effects). However, it does not disclose whether authentication is needed or any preconditions, though for a simple version check this is 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value: the first sentence states the function, the second gives usage advice. No wasted text.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains what is returned ('version + how it was detected') but lacks exact format details. For a simple diagnostic tool in a context with upgrade-related siblings, it covers the essential purpose but could be more explicit about the return structure.

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, and the description adds no parameter-level information. With schema coverage at 100% and no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add param details.

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 clearly states what the tool does: return the installed OpenClaw version and detection method. It provides a specific verb-object pair ('Return the currently-installed OpenClaw version') and adds context about detection. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond implying it's the first step.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Run this first to confirm the backend can read your deployment.' This implies it should be used before other operations, but it does not provide when-not-to-use or mention alternative tools for version-related queries.

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