openclaw_tools_effective

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

With no annotations provided, the description clearly indicates the tool is read-only and explains its merging behavior. It does not cover potential errors (e.g., missing agent) or authorization requirements, but for a simple read operation, the transparency is sufficient.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and culminating with a read-only declaration. No extraneous information is present; 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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and behavior but leaves gaps: it does not explain how to use parameters (especially agentId and sessionId), what the return value structure is, or how to handle agent-not-found cases. It is minimally adequate but lacks detail for a complete understanding.

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 description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Only one of three parameters (instance) has a schema description; the others (agentId, sessionId) lack descriptions, and the tool description does not clarify their purpose or necessity. Schema coverage is low (33%), and the description fails to compensate.

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 retrieves the effective merged tool set for an agent, listing its components (base catalog, skill-provided, per-agent overrides). It explicitly marks the operation as read-only and differentiates from siblings like openclaw_tools_catalog by specifying the merging of overrides.

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 usage for obtaining the effective tool set but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., openclaw_tools_catalog) or provide any 'when not to use' guidance. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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