openclaw_logs_tail

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only' and details the client-side filtering behavior, including that the gateway rejects `sinceMs`, `level`, and `component`. This discloses important behavioral traits not captured in annotations (which are absent) and adds context about version verification.

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 five sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, read-only nature, client-side filtering, usage tip, and use cases. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information, and efficient.

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, the description covers purpose, parameters behavior, usage context, and system architecture. It is complete for a log tailing tool, addressing complexity of client-server interaction and version-specific behavior.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds critical architectural insight: only `limit` is sent to the gateway; other filters are applied client-side. It also explains that `instance` falls back to default or environment variables. This enriches parameter understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 tails recent gateway logs, wrapping `logs.tail`, and is read-only. It provides specific debugging use cases (e.g., tracing cron failures, session aborts), distinguishing it from siblings which are for other OpenClaw operations.

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 explains when to use this tool (debugging) and gives explicit guidance: only `limit` is forwarded to the gateway; other parameters are applied client-side. It advises raising `limit` for wide tails. This clarifies parameter intent and limitations beyond the schema.

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