agent_dispatch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses fire-and-forget behavior, blocking behavior, return payloads (runId + childSessionKey), and Telegram support. It does not detail failure modes, authorization needs, or side effects of dispatching an agent, but the core operational behavior is transparent.

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 compact and well-structured, leading with the core action, then listing modes with line breaks, and ending with routing and usage condition. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or fluff.

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 complexity (14 parameters, 3 modes, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers modes, routing, and when to call. It stops short of describing exact return shapes for sync mode and error or edge-case behavior, which a fully complete definition might include.

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% and each parameter already has detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds value by explaining mode semantics (async/sync/spawn) and how parameters relate to those modes, which goes beyond the schema's enum lists and defaults.

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 verb and resource ('Send a task or message to an OpenClaw agent') and immediately distinguishes three modes, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It also names the target agents (Tani, Alan, Rachel), which further separates it from siblings like agent_query and agent_control.

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 a clear invocation condition ('Only call when the user has explicitly requested execution') and explains when each mode is appropriate (async, sync, spawn). However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternative sibling tools or say when not to use it in favor of them, which keeps it from a 5.

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