openclaw_gateway_identity_get

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

The description declares the tool is read-only and wraps `gateway.identity.get`, which implies no side effects. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which would enhance transparency.

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 extremely concise with two short, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description adequately specifies the returned fields (id, version, owner, region) and notes the wrapper function. It is sufficiently complete given the tool's low complexity.

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 100%, with the `instance` parameter well-documented in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter details but the schema suffices, so baseline 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 the tool retrieves the gateway's identity (id, version, owner, region) and explicitly labels it as read-only. It is a specific verb+resource combination that effectively communicates its functionality.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `openclaw_agent_identity_get` or other identity retrieval methods. No context is given for exclusions or prerequisites.

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