openclaw_task_status

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 mentions that the tool 'Returns status, and result if completed,' which adds useful context about output behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated).

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: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks details on error cases, side effects, or integration with sibling tools. For a status-checking tool, this is acceptable but leaves gaps in full contextual understanding.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter 'task_id' fully. The description adds marginal value by linking it to 'openclaw_chat_async,' providing context for where the ID comes from. With only one parameter, the baseline is high, but it doesn't elaborate beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Check the status of an async task.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('async task'), and distinguishes it from siblings like openclaw_chat (synchronous chat) and openclaw_task_list (list tasks). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from openclaw_status, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'task ID returned from openclaw_chat_async,' suggesting this tool follows an async operation. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like openclaw_status or openclaw_task_list, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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