openclaw_chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic send/receive behavior but does not mention session handling, statefulness, error cases, timeouts, or other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation context.

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, concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and outcome, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 simple with two params and no output schema, but the description omits key contextual information for an agent, such as the synchronous nature relative to openclaw_chat_async, session_id reuse semantics, or what the response contains. While not grossly inadequate, it leaves room for ambiguity in a toolset with several similar siblings.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (message and session_id), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how session_id affects behavior or examples of valid messages. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 OpenClaw and get a response.' It includes a specific verb and resource, and the outcome ('get a response') distinguishes it from sibling tools like openclaw_chat_async (async) and openclaw_message (possibly no response). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as openclaw_chat_async, openclaw_message, or other siblings. It does not state any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage on its own.

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