openclaw_system_event

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states it emits an event and wraps a command but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or whether the event is persistent. The agent lacks insight into potential impacts on system state.

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?

Two sentences front-load the primary action and a secondary usage note. Every word serves a purpose with no fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the tool's audience and purpose but lacks return value information (no output schema) and does not discuss error conditions or confirmations. For a simple emission tool with three documented params, it is minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the payload is arbitrary but adds no new param-specific detail.

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 verb 'emit' and the resource 'custom system event onto the gateway bus,' specifying the action and target. It is distinct from sibling tools, as no other tool directly emits events, and the description references wrapping an internal command for context.

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 notes it is 'mostly used for tooling/debug' and that 'operators rarely call this directly,' providing some guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for production event emission.

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