openclaw_chat

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

Without any annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'get a response' but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or blocking behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects.

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 sentence with 10 words, which is concise. However, it could be more informative while still being brief.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description fails to explain the response format or behavior. It does not mention the importance of session_id for conversation context or any error scenarios. Sibling tools indicate additional functionality (e.g., instances, async) that are not referenced.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new information. The baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 (send a message) and the target (OpenClaw), and implies a synchronous response. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'openclaw_chat_async' which is an asynchronous version.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'openclaw_chat_async' or when not to use it. The description lacks contextual selection advice.

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