ask_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and that a response will be returned, but does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., unknown agent, timeouts), whether the response is streamed or complete, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that sends messages to external agents.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids fluff and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. The inclusion of example agent names is efficient and useful.

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 tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly conveys the input (message) and the expected result (response). However, it does not describe the format or content of the response, which might be relevant for an agent. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but not perfect.

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 100%, with both 'agent' and 'message' documented in the input schema. The description adds example agent names, but these are already present in the schema's agent description. Thus, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's function: 'Send a message to an OpenClaw agent and get their response.' It uses a specific verb (send) and resource (agent), and provides example agent names. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_agents and agent_status, which cover listing and status checking.

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 practical usage context by listing example agent names ('daemon', 'soren', 'ash', 'mira', 'jace', 'pip'), implying the user should know which agent to address. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of siblings, but the purpose is clear enough that the distinction is implicit.

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