vector_setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so well by surfacing mutating actions ('install the Vector SDK if missing', 'write OpenClaw config') and by stating the return shape: a structured PASS/FAIL report with remediation steps. It could add side-effect warnings, but the main behaviors are transparent.

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?

Three focused sentences: pipeline, return value, and when to call. Every sentence earns its place and the most important usage instruction is front-loaded.

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 6-parameter setup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers the workflow, the expected report, and the invocation context. It could mention edge cases like all flags being false, but the schema and description together give a capable agent enough to proceed.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's stage list loosely maps to the boolean flags (install_sdk, write_config, run_connectivity, run_smoke), but the schema already explains each parameter clearly and the description adds no parameter-level details beyond that.

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 names a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('VectorClaw setup wizard') and lists concrete pipeline steps: validate Python, install SDK, write config, check connectivity, run smoke tests. This clearly differentiates it from sibling robot-control tools like vector_drive or vector_say.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger and ordering: 'Call this tool first when setting up VectorClaw for a new user.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the setup intent is unambiguous and unique among the sibling tools.

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