openclaw_setup_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states that passwords/tokens are never returned (only presence indicators), and discloses the secrets location (file vs OS keychain). This is good transparency for a read-only list operation.

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: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add two key additional pieces of information (active default, secrets location). Every word adds value, no waste.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary information: what is listed (instances with specific fields) and what additional data is included. It is complete for a list tool without requiring pagination or ordering details.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate per guidelines.

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 lists all persisted gateway instances with specific fields (name, URL, token/password status) and additional information about active default and secrets location. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like openclaw_setup_show (likely single instance) and openclaw_setup_select_default (set default).

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 implies that this tool is used for obtaining an overview of gateways, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like openclaw_setup_show. No usage exclusions or context are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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