openclaw_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sends a message and gets a response, implying a synchronous interaction, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's idempotent. For a chat tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Send a message to OpenClaw and get a response.' It uses a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words, efficiently conveying the core functionality without unnecessary details. This is an excellent example of brevity in tool descriptions.

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?

Given the complexity of a chat tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on response format, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools like async variants. For a tool that likely involves network calls and conversation management, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('message' and 'session_id'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of 'session_id' or typical use cases. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 tool's purpose: 'Send a message to OpenClaw and get a response.' It specifies the verb ('send') and resource ('OpenClaw'), and the outcome ('get a response'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'openclaw_chat_async', which likely handles asynchronous messaging, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'openclaw_chat_async' for async operations or 'openclaw_status' for checking status, nor does it specify any context or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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