openclaw_chat_async

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: the asynchronous operation, immediate task_id return, and polling requirement for results. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality and return value, the second provides crucial usage guidance. It's front-loaded with essential information and contains zero wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (asynchronous operation with polling), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the asynchronous nature and task_id mechanism. However, it doesn't describe what the eventual results look like or error scenarios, leaving some gaps in completeness for a tool without output schema.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'session_id' maintains context or what 'priority' values are typical). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Send a message to OpenClaw asynchronously') and distinguishes it from the synchronous sibling 'openclaw_chat' by emphasizing the asynchronous nature and immediate task_id return. It explicitly identifies the resource (OpenClaw) and verb (send message) with clear 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this for potentially long-running conversations') and implicitly suggests alternatives by mentioning the task_id polling mechanism, which relates to sibling tools like 'openclaw_task_status'. It clearly establishes the context for choosing this over synchronous options.

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