openclaw_task_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about non-mutating behavior, pagination, sorting, or return format. The bare description leaves room for ambiguity about what 'all tasks' entails.

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 of ten words, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, and the sentence structure is clear and unambiguous.

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 listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks any mention of pagination, result limits, or ordering, which could be relevant for a tool that lists 'all' tasks. Still, the tool's simplicity keeps it close to a 4.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for status and session_id. The description adds value by clarifying these are optional filters, reinforcing the 'required: []' in the schema. It doesn't dive into format details, but the schema already provides those.

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 'List all tasks' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions optional filters for status or session. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_status (which likely retrieves a single task's status) and task_cancel (which mutates tasks).

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 use for listing all tasks with optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like task_status. There is no 'when-not' or mention of alternative tools for single-task lookups.

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