openclaw_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It transparently states this is a read-only operation ('Get') focused on status/health, with no hidden side effects implied. It does not detail response format or edge cases, but for a 0-parameter status tool it is sufficiently clear.

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 fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 0-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the purpose clearly. However, it could be slightly more explicit about what 'health information' includes or when to prefer this over other status-related tools, but it is not a significant gap.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema fully described). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly indicates there are no parameters to specify. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 gets OpenClaw gateway status and health information. The verb 'Get' plus specific resource 'gateway status and health information' distinguishes it from sibling tools like task status, memory, and chat tools.

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?

Usage is implied as a status check, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no mention of exclusions, or context like 'use when needing to verify gateway health.' The description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer the scope.

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