openclaw_agent_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is long-running, uses a timeout (default 30s), and wraps `agent.wait`. However, it does not describe what happens on timeout (error vs. return), side effects, or return value. Adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentences are efficient and front-loaded with the core action. No redundancy. Could be improved by structuring into separate points (e.g., behavior, parameters, notes), but still concise and readable.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about parameter usage, failure modes, and when to use. It only covers the basic blocking behavior, leaving significant gaps for effective agent selection and invocation.

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 only 25%, but the tool description adds no explanations for the parameters (agentId, sessionId, timeoutMs). Only implicitly mentions timeoutMs via the 'default 30s' note. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 blocks until the agent finishes its current turn or timeout, specifying the verb 'block' and resource 'agent'. It distinguishes the core action from siblings like openclaw_agent (which sends commands) but does not explicitly differentiate from other wait-type tools like openclaw_exec_approval_waitDecision.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest sibling tools like openclaw_agent or other wait functions. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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