List OpenClaw Agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that the listing targets the remote gateway and reflects 'currently registered' agents, which is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it does not detail output shape or pagination.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line action, a use-when block, and a do-not-use block with a concrete alternative. Every sentence adds decision-relevant value, and the core action 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 simple, read-only, optional-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it states the action, the intended use cases, the exclusion, and the fallback for the excluded case. No output schema is present, but the nature of a listing operation makes return expectations straightforward.

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 the stackName parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List agents currently registered on the remote OpenClaw gateway.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools about stacks, status, config, and logs by focusing on agent registration.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('see which agents are running, debug agent routing, or count active workspaces') and when not to use it (one agent's logs), even providing the fallback command `clawops agents logs <name>`. This leaves no ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools.

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