openclaw_sessions_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it explains that the `status` filter is applied client-side after fetch (with a note validating this against the gateway), details key formats, and describes instance routing fallback. It does not cover pagination beyond limit/offset or error behavior, but it adds meaningful context beyond the raw function name.

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 sentences plus a parenthetical, efficiently stating purpose, key format, usage context, and a behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the core action. Minor improvement would be to remove redundancy or tighten the parenthetical, but overall it is concise.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return structure (e.g., array of session objects, pagination metadata). It describes key formats but omits details like response fields or how limit/offset affects results. It is adequate for a simple list operation but could be more complete regarding expected output.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters documented in schema: status, agentId, instance). The description adds value for `status` (client-side behavior), `instance` (fallback logic), and explains key formats. However, `limit` and `offset` receive no additional explanation, and the description does not fully compensate for the 40% undocumented parameters.

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 its purpose: 'List active OpenClaw agentic sessions.' It provides specific details about session key formats and explicitly positions itself as a tool to use before preview/patch/abort/compact/reset, distinguishing it from sibling session tools.

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 says 'Use to find a session before preview/patch/abort/compact/reset,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. It also warns about the client-side status filter behavior, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it relative to alternative list tools.

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