openclaw_tools_invoke

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool invokes an API and returns results, omitting details about authentication requirements, error handling, latency, or side effects. The description does not contradict annotations since none exist.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's core function. It wastes no words, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., a second sentence on usage context).

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?

Despite having 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. The schema covers parameter details well, and the output_variable_name parameter explains how to access results. However, the description itself provides no guidance on constructing the invocation or interpreting results, which is a gap for a complex tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, simply summarizing the tool's purpose. Each parameter has a detailed description in the schema, so no further elaboration is 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 action ('Invoke a single tool'), the resource ('on an OpenClaw instance'), and the return ('Returns the tool's result'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are specialized actions for specific services or domains.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context of sibling tools (specific actions) implies this is for generic tool invocation, no guidance on when not to use it or when other tools are preferable is provided.

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