query-config-docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states that the operation returns documentation and code examples, but it does not disclose result format, pagination, or edge-case behavior. This is adequate for a simple read-only query tool but not rich.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and usage guidance immediately after. No filler words or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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?

For a simple three-parameter lookup tool, the description plus complete schema coverage is nearly sufficient. It does not explain the return format, but given the low complexity and clear retrieval purpose, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between query and topicId: resolve-topic first or search directly. This improves an agent's understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get detailed OpenClaw documentation and code examples.' It also references the sibling resolve-topic explicitly, making it clear that this tool retrieves documentation while resolve-topic finds topic IDs. This distinguishes it well from the only sibling.

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 second sentence gives explicit workflow guidance: use resolve-topic first to obtain a topicId, or search directly with a query. This tells the agent when to use this tool and how it relates to the alternative, leaving little to inference.

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