openclaw_agents_files_get

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

States the tool is read-only and wraps agents.files.get, which provides basic behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, the description should disclose more details like error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits, but it does not.

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 clear, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and expected contents, the second clarifies parameter usage. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

Covers the core purpose and parameter constraint but lacks details about return format, error handling, and authentication. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description could be more complete to aid agent decision-making.

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 75%, and the description reinforces the mutual exclusivity of path and name, which is already declared in the schema. It does not add significant new meaning beyond what the input schema provides, earning a baseline score.

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?

Clearly states it fetches contents of a specific agent file, listing examples like system prompt and tool definitions. Differentiates from sibling tools like openclaw_agents_files_list and openclaw_agents_files_set by specifying 'specific' file and 'contents'.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use either path or name, not both, and marks the tool as read-only. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives, the context from sibling tool names makes the distinction clear.

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