openclaw_talk_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'set' which implies mutability, but does not clarify whether changes are reversible, require permissions, or affect other settings. The phrase 'Wraps talk.config' is ambiguous and does not detail atomicity or side effects. The agent lacks critical safety context for a mutation-capable tool.

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 a single concise sentence that combines the operation (get/set) and the config items in parentheses. No wasted words. However, the inclusion of 'Wraps talk.config' could be seen as slightly extraneous to an agent, but overall it's efficient.

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 the simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete. However, it omits what the tool returns on get or set. For a tool with no output schema, the description should ideally state the return format (e.g., returns config object). This missing detail lowers completeness.

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 for the single parameter (instance) is 100%, meaning the schema already fully documents it. The tool description does not add any extra meaning for parameters, so a baseline score of 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 the tool gets/sets the talk-mode config and lists three specific config items (push-to-talk, hold-to-listen, voice activity detection). This provides a specific verb+resource scope and distinguishes it from siblings like openclaw_talk_mode (likely a mode enabler) and openclaw_talk_speak.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned. The sibling openclaw_talk_mode could be confused as an alternative, but no guidance is provided. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it over others.

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