openclaw_system_presence

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Read-only' which is a behavioral trait, but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or permissions. Minimal disclosure beyond basic read-only nature.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a keyword. No unnecessary words, yet includes purpose and read-only note. Every word earns its place.

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 key points: what it returns (connected devices and last spoke time). Could mention return format but adequate given simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'instance', which includes a detailed description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

Description clearly states action 'Get', resource 'presence info', and specifics: connected devices and last spoke time. It also mentions it's a wrapper and read-only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like openclaw_device_status or openclaw_health.

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?

Description provides clear purpose but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like openclaw_device_status. Usage is implied but not detailed.

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