openclaw_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait indicating no mutations. It also mentions it wraps a JSON-RPC method, adding technical context without contradicting any annotations.

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 with two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose and contents, the second adds relevant technical detail. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (overview of uptime, agents, sessions, queues) and that it is safe. Could optionally mention the return format, but not required.

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 100% for the single parameter 'instance', and its description in the schema is sufficient. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but that is acceptable given full 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 'Get overall gateway status' and lists the key components (uptime, agents, sessions, queues), distinguishing it from more specific status tools like openclaw_device_status or openclaw_skills_status by using 'overall'.

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 it is for a high-level overview but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like openclaw_health or openclaw_usage_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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