openclaw_task_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool 'Returns status, and result if completed,' which gives some transparency about the return payload. However, it does not explicitly confirm that this is a non-destructive read operation, nor does it mention error behavior or whether the status check is one-time or can be polled. The description adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 exceptionally concise with two short sentences: 'Check the status of an async task. Returns status, and result if completed.' Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. This is a model of efficient communication.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core function and return behavior. However, it lacks detail on the possible status values, what 'result' looks like, or how this behaves when the task ID is invalid. Given no output schema exists, the description could be more explicit about the return format. It is adequate but not complete for an agent needing to interpret the response.

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 has 100% description coverage for the only parameter (task_id), which is clearly described as 'The task ID returned from openclaw_chat_async'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: checking the status of an async task. The verb 'check' and resource 'async task' are specific, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like openclaw_chat_async (which starts tasks) and openclaw_task_cancel (which cancels). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from openclaw_task_list, which also deals with tasks, 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 explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a task ID from openclaw_chat_async (though that is noted in the schema parameter description). The 'when to use' is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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