get_bot_heartbeat_openclaw

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: file location, trigger (fill-triggered, not watchdog), and typical schema. Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive, so the description enriches behavior without contradiction.

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?

Concise yet informative. The core action is front-loaded, followed by essential details about trigger and alternatives. No redundant sentences.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the typical schema and clarifies the file's role versus other monitoring tools. Sufficient for an agent to decide proper use.

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 in input schema, so high coverage. Description adds meaning by detailing that the file is MNQ-only and the schema includes {ts, bot, symbol}, which is useful for understanding what the tool reads.

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 the action 'Read ~/.openclaw/bot_heartbeat.json' and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools by explaining the file's purpose and trigger mechanism.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'For fleet process liveness use get_bot_health / get_all_bot_ops_status; for failover primary use control-tower logs/bot_heartbeat.json.' Also explains the file is MNQ-only and fill-triggered.

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