openclaw_node_invoke

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes mutation potential ('mutates depending on the target method') but omits critical details: authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior (e.g., for nonexistent nodes), or safety profile. The phrase 'RPC routed through the gateway' adds minimal transparency. The description does not warn about side effects or resource usage.

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 at two sentences. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy. However, it is slightly underspecified; additional context (e.g., about method validity) could be added without significant bloat. Still, it achieves front-loaded clarity.

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?

Given the large sibling tool set and absence of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'invoke a method' means in practice, what return values to expect, or how the tool fits into the broader workflow (e.g., prior need to list nodes with openclaw_node_list). The complexity of the tool (RPC, opaque params) demands richer context.

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 coverage is 50% (method and nodeId lack schema descriptions). The tool description adds no extra meaning for these required parameters—does not explain valid formats, sources, or constraints. For 'params', it echoes the schema's 'opaque passthrough' without elaboration. The 'instance' parameter description in schema is adequate, but overall the description fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Invoke a method on a specific node (RPC routed through the gateway).' It distinguishes from sibling node tools (e.g., node_describe, node_rename) by focusing on generic method invocation, and the reference to 'RPC' differentiates it from higher-level tools like openclaw_call. The verb 'invoke' is specific and actionable.

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 like openclaw_node_describe or openclaw_node_rename. It mentions 'mutates depending on the target method' but does not clarify when mutation occurs or when read-only methods are appropriate. No prerequisites or context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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