openclaw_task_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a list operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if there are rate limits, pagination details, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 with two short sentences that directly state the action and optional features. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list format, fields included), behavioral constraints, or how it fits with siblings. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 fully documents the two parameters (status with enum values and session_id). The description adds minimal value by mentioning optional filtering, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, such as how filtering logic works or examples of usage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all tasks'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'openclaw_task_status' or 'openclaw_status', which might also provide task-related information, so it doesn't fully distinguish its specific role.

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 mentions optional filtering by status or session, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'openclaw_task_status' for individual tasks or 'openclaw_status' for broader status checks. There's no explicit when/when-not context or named alternatives.

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