openclaw_skills_status

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

With no annotations, the description correctly declares the tool as read-only and mentions it wraps 'skills.status'. However, it lacks detail on what exactly the status looks like, any permissions required, or rate limits. The disclosure is minimal but accurate.

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 purpose and then provide an implementation detail. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. It hints at output content (installed, enabled, recently updated) but could explicitly state the return format. Overall, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema already provides a detailed description for the 'instance' parameter, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the skills subsystem status, including installed, enabled, and recently updated skills. The verb 'Get' and the explicit 'Read-only' mark the intent. It distinguishes from sibling skills tools like openclaw_skills_search, which searches, and openclaw_skills_install, which installs.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the function without context for selection among many sibling tools.

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