openclaw_talk_speak

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'synthesizes + plays' audio, but omits crucial details such as whether the operation is blocking, whether it requires audio output hardware, if there are side effects (e.g., interrupting current speech), or any permission/authorization needs. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect expectations.

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 sentence that instantly conveys the core function, followed by a concise implementation note. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not thorough. It misses potential contextual information such as whether the speech is played through the agent's default speaker, if it can be interrupted, or if there are rate limits. Considering the lack of annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context (e.g., async behavior, audio output requirements) to be fully 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 has two parameters: 'text' (required) and 'instance' (optional). Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'instance' is described). The tool description clarifies that 'text' is the piece of text to speak, adding context beyond the schema's type constraint. For 'instance', the schema already provides a detailed description. Overall, the description adds moderate value to parameter understanding but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions of 'text' (no minLength/maxLength details beyond the schema).

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's action: 'Make the agent speak a piece of text out loud (synthesizes + plays).' It identifies the specific action on a well-defined resource (agent speech), and the inclusion of 'Wraps `talk.speak`' adds implementation context. Among sibling tools like openclaw_tts_convert (which only converts text to speech without playing) and openclaw_talk_config (which manages talk settings), this tool's purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions wrapping `talk.speak`, there is no explanation of scenarios where this tool is preferred over openclaw_tts_convert or other speech-related tools. The absence of any conditional advice or exclusion criteria leaves the agent without decision support.

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