openclaw_doctor_memory_repairDreamingArtifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Mutates', implying destructive behavior, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error handling, or whether the operation is reversible. More details are needed for safe invocation.

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 concise with only two short sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and includes a clear mutation indicator. However, it could be formatted more clearly by separating the examples or adding a usage hint.

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 tool is relatively simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, it omits details about return values, error states, and preconditions, which would help the agent manage expectations.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional 'instance' parameter, so the schema already documents it well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, hence baseline score 3.

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 it repairs corrupted dreaming artifacts with concrete examples (orphan files, broken JSON). The verb 'repair' is specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling doctor_memory tools (e.g., status, dream diary), relying on context.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other doctor_memory tools). It only says 'Mutates', which provides minimal context about use, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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