openclaw_message

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 action and target channels, but does not mention return values, side effects, error handling, authentication needs, or gateway requirements. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty for a send operation.

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 sentence with no filler, directly conveying the core purpose and scope. It is well-structured and front-loaded, earning a high 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, this simple description is insufficient for complete understanding. It omits return values, potential errors, prerequisites, and any post-send behavior. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not fill the contextual gaps left by missing structured metadata.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (target, channel, message, media_path) with 100% coverage, fulfilling the baseline. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it neither enhances nor detracts.

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 "Send a message on Telegram or WhatsApp via the OpenClaw gateway," using a specific verb and resource. It identifies the scope (channels and gateway) but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like openclaw_chat, so it falls 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as openclaw_chat, openclaw_alert, or openclaw_status. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, selection criteria, or exclusions.

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