openclaw_cli

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by noting that config_set writes over SSH, that config_get reads directly from the filesystem, that restart cannot be performed remotely and returns instructions, and that doctor runs over SSH. It also mentions safety characteristics like CLI validation, but does not go into detail about side effects or failure modes.

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 well-structured with a brief overview followed by bullet-style explanations for each command. Each sentence earns its place by adding operational detail, and the most important decision-relevant differences are front-loaded.

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 covers all five commands and their mechanics, which is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly. Since there is no output schema, it could have said more about return values or output formats, but for a multi-command tool with rich schema coverage, the description is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and parameter descriptions already document each parameter thoroughly with examples, so the description adds limited additional semantic value. It reinforces command-specific context, such as direct filesystem reads versus SSH writes, which helps interpret parameters like key and value, but the schema already carries the main burden.

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 identifies the tool as performing OpenClaw CLI operations and enumerates each distinct command with a concise explanation. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like agent_dispatch or shell_exec, and even differentiates sub-commands like config_get versus config_set.

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 useful guidance on when to use each sub-command, especially config_get versus config_set based on safety and speed trade-offs. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of related siblings like shell_exec or system_health, leaving that comparison to inference.

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