Get OpenClaw Config Value

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description does not need to restate it. It adds useful context about the remote gateway and the full-dump behavior when key is omitted, but does not disclose return format or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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: one action sentence followed by clear use and non-use conditions. Every sentence earns its place, and the primary purpose 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?

This is a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations. The schema plus description fully specify how to invoke it, and sibling routing is explicit. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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%, with key and stackName already documented including the dot-path example and the default stack path. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('configuration value from the remote OpenClaw gateway'), and gives concrete inspection examples such as active model provider and enabled channels. This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like clawops_config_set.

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 provides 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' conditions, naming clawops_config_set as the alternative for changing config. An agent can reliably decide between read and mutate operations without further inference.

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