openclaw_channels_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It states 'Read-only' which indicates no side effects, but does not disclose error handling, auth requirements, or performance implications. Adequate but minimal for a simple status check; could mention that it returns per-channel status objects.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. Clearly states purpose and key attribute (read-only). Every sentence adds value.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does and its safety profile, but could be improved by hinting at the response format (e.g., 'Returns status objects per channel') to fully inform agent decisions.

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 the single parameter 'instance' is well-documented in the schema (optional, fallback behavior). The tool description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the connection status of delivery channels' with examples (Telegram, email), specifies it wraps an internal command, and explicitly marks it as read-only. This provides a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from sibling tools like openclaw_channels_logout or openclaw_device_status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks conditions for use, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the read-only hint is present, it does not help an agent decide between this and other status-related tools (e.g., openclaw_device_status, openclaw_status).

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