openclaw_alert

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 only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, failure handling, or what happens after sending—key details for a tool with no output schema.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's core purpose.

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?

While the tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what the caller can expect after sending. It does not mention return values, delivery confirmation, or asynchronous behavior, leaving the completeness partially lacking.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text (level, title, details). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already defines all three fields, so the baseline of 3 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 action: 'Send an urgent alert to Gabriel on Telegram via OpenClaw.' It specifies the verb, resource, recipient, and channel, and distinguishes it from siblings like openclaw_message by emphasizing urgency and the specific target.

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 implies a clear context: use this tool when an urgent alert needs to go to Gabriel on Telegram. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the urgency and target provide enough context for selection.

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