get_openclaw_state_summary

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing exactly what data is returned (existence, size, last-modified time for seven specific state files) and the health-check purpose, going beyond the annotations 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating what the tool gets and why to use it.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context: it lists the specific state files and the health-check use case. However, it could mention that the output is a summary object or indicate typical response size, but it is sufficient for a simple read-only tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed; the baseline applies.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'existence, size, and last-modified time for all OpenClaw state files', and specifies the purpose: 'verify OpenClaw is healthy'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_openclaw_memory' which targets a single state file.

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 explicitly says 'Use to verify OpenClaw is healthy and its state files are current', providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for more detailed checks, so it lacks exclusions.

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