openclaw_node_event

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It only states the tool 'wraps node.event' without explaining behavioral traits like idempotency, error handling, or effect on the node.

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 very concise at two sentences, which is efficient, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads the action but lacks structured presentation of parameters or behavior.

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?

With no output schema and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values or provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 only 33% (only 'instance' has a description). The tool description adds no meaning for 'event' or 'nodeId' beyond their names, and the 'instance' description is in the schema but not leveraged.

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 action ('emit an event') and the target ('toward a node or gateway-side node bus'), and references 'node.event'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like openclaw_node_invoke or openclaw_system_event, which may also emit events.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as openclaw_sessions_send or openclaw_send. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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