openclaw_logs

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: it supports line count and keyword filtering, and lists all source options (gateway, agent, system, custom). It does not mention any destructive side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only log viewer.

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?

Single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part of the description adds value.

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?

Description is complete given the tool's complexity: it explains the purpose, supported sources, and filtering options. It lacks detail on output format but that is acceptable since there is no output schema. Overall, provides enough context for an AI agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 all parameters described. The description reiterates the line count and keyword filtering capability but does not add significant new 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'View' and the resource 'logs' from the OpenClaw server, listing specific log types (gateway, agent execution, system journal). It distinguishes from sibling tools like openclaw_status by focusing specifically on log viewing.

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?

Description implicitly tells when to use (to view logs from OpenClaw server) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The clear context of log viewing is sufficient for most scenarios.

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