openclaw_memory_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation, which is inherently non-destructive, but it does not detail error handling, permission requirements, path traversal restrictions, or return value format. The description is minimally transparent beyond the core behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It earns its place by stating the action and scope precisely.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately conveys purpose and scope. It could explicitly mention that the file contents are returned, but that is implied by 'Read' and the overall structure of the description.

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% because the only parameter 'path' has a helpful description including an example. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies for a high-coverage schema where 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('memory file') within the context of the OpenClaw workspace. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling openclaw_memory_write, which targets the complementary write operation.

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 clearly implies the tool's usage context: when you need to read a memory file from the workspace. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling naming makes the when-to-use clear, and no competing read tool exists among the siblings.

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