OpenClaw Agent by Nova (CIVAI)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a persistent registration (a mutation), but says nothing about required permissions, whether the token is validated, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on failure.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized for a one-parameter tool, though thin on substance.

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?

For a registration-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits prerequisites, side effects, and outcome. An agent knows the intent but little else required to invoke it confidently.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema is 0% described, but the description's phrase 'using bot token' does map the single input to its meaning. That is the minimum needed; no format, source, or validation detail about the token is added.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add Telegram channel ... using bot token'. It conveys what the tool does clearly enough, though it uses the hyphenated name verbatim and doesn't differentiate itself against the sibling tools beyond the Telegram context.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not say when this is preferable to the sibling telegram-pairing-approval path, nor what prerequisites exist for using a bot token.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether this ends the turn, whether it mutates state, whether it should be combined with other tool calls, or what the reply consists of — significant gaps for a tool with zero structured behavioral coverage.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and appends the trigger condition; nothing is wasted. It is efficient, though it is efficient at a fairly low level of detail.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (one optional param, no output schema), so the short description is defensible, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least clarify the conversational fallback's role in the turn lifecycle. It stops just short of that.

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 is one optional parameter (reply_hint) whose schema description already covers it at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or influence guidance beyond what the schema already supplies.

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?

It gives a verb ('reply conversationally') and a trigger condition ('when the request is ambiguous or needs clarification'), which separates it from the calendar siblings by function. However, the 'resource' is nebulous — there is no statement of what the reply acts on or produces, so the agent must infer it is a non-action fallback.

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 names one condition for use: ambiguity or need for clarification. It implies, but never states, that the event-management siblings (add/update/delete/check events) are the alternative when the request is clear, leaving the when-not boundary to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that history is returned; it says nothing about what the bridge does with the instruction, whether the call mutates remote state, what permissions are needed, or how long history is retained.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It earns its place, though it is arguably too terse for the ambiguity of the tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should compensate but does not. An agent cannot tell what the bridge is, what happens to the instruction, or what 'history' contains.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'instruction' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only repeats the parameter's name implicitly ('send instruction') without format, length, or content expectations, adding almost no meaning.

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 gives a verb ('Send instruction') and names a mechanism ('OpenClaw bridge') plus a return value ('history'), so the basic action is inferable. However, 'forward' is generic and the description does not distinguish it from the sibling 'converse', which plausibly also sends instructions to the same bridge.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'converse' or 'telegram-pairing-approval'. The agent must guess at the routing decision from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the action is performed 'via OpenClaw shell script', which hints at an execution mechanism, but says nothing about permissions required, reversibility, side effects on Telegram state, or failure modes.

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 short sentence with no padding; the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the trailing mechanism clause occupies space that would be better spent on parameters or preconditions.

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?

For a mutating approval action with no annotations, no output schema, and completely undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine which inputs to supply or what state changes or error conditions to expect.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% with two parameters (pairing_id, telegram_user_id) and the description never mentions either. The word 'pairing' obliquely gestures at pairing_id, but there is no indication of which identifier is required, their formats, or whether both must be supplied.

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 names a specific verb (approve) and resource (Telegram pairing), so an agent can tell what it does. It does not differentiate from the sibling tools (add-telegram-channel-using-token, converse, forward), and the 'via OpenClaw shell script' clause is an implementation detail rather than purpose information.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives, no preconditions (e.g., an existing pending pairing request), and no mention of what happens if it is called for an already-approved or unknown pairing.

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