openclaw_message_broadcast

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

No annotations provided, and the description lacks details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is synchronous. 'Broadcast' implies mutation but no behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with essential information. It could be slightly more detailed but remains appropriately concise.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and sibling differentiation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain broadcast behavior (e.g., return values, async nature) or when to prefer it over 'openclaw_message_send'.

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%; descriptions for 'channel,' 'targets,' and 'message' are provided in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema.

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 'Broadcast a message to multiple targets' uses a specific verb ('broadcast') and resource ('message'), and implies sending to multiple recipients, distinguishing it from the sibling 'openclaw_message_send' which likely addresses a single target.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'openclaw_message_send'. The description does not specify appropriate contexts or exclusions.

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