sessions_send

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 discloses the action and identification requirement but omits the response/wait behavior enabled by 'timeoutSeconds' (e.g., whether it returns the other session's reply). This is a notable gap for a messaging tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by an essential requirement. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 description adequately covers the core purpose and parameter constraints, but for a tool with no output schema or annotations, it should clarify response/wait behavior, especially given the 'timeoutSeconds' parameter. The absence of this detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's return value and blocking nature.

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?

While the schema already describes all parameters, the description adds crucial semantic information: 'Either sessionKey or label must be provided to identify the target session.' This is not reflected in the schema's required list, making it valuable beyond the structured data.

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 states a specific action: 'Send a message into another OpenClaw session' and explicitly mentions 'Use for agent-to-agent communication,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'message' that likely target users.

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 gives clear context ('Use for agent-to-agent communication') and identifies a prerequisite (sessionKey or label required). It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the stated use case is sufficiently directive.

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