openclaw_health

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

The description explicitly labels the tool as 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait, especially since no annotations are provided. It also describes the output components (server health JSON-RPC, client metadata) and the action it performs (probe), giving adequate transparency 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 two short sentences, immediately front-loading the core purpose ('Combined health probe') and key details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 health check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value composition and usage intent. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact format of the output, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 single parameter 'instance' is fully described in the input schema with details about routing and fallback behavior. The description does not add additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, a 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 the tool performs a combined health probe, specifying both server-side and client-side components, and directly contrasts with sibling tools by emphasizing it's a one-shot 'is everything OK?' check. The verb 'probe' and resource 'health' are specific and distinguishable.

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 explicitly recommends use for a one-shot check ('Use this for a one-shot 'is everything OK?' check'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from more detailed health tools.

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