openclaw_introspect

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

Discloses side effect: 'Triggers a connect (if not already)'. With no annotations provided, this adds important behavioral context. Could mention authorization requirements but sufficient for an introspection tool.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: first sentence states purpose and side effect, second lists returns, third gives usage advice. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite no output schema, description fully covers return contents (server version, role/scopes, methods/events, coverage report) and explains why this matters (discovery for openclaw_call and identifying gaps after upgrades). Complete for an introspection tool.

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?

Only one parameter 'instance' with clear description in schema; the description adds value by explaining fallback behavior and referencing another tool (openclaw_setup_list) for listing instances, which goes beyond the schema.

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 inspects gateway capabilities, lists specific returned data (server version, role/scopes, methods/events, coverage report), and distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining its introspective purpose.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use to discover what methods you can call via openclaw_call and to spot endpoints that still need a typed wrapper after a gateway upgrade.' Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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