openclaw_tts_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It declares the operation as read-only and lists returned fields, which is adequate for a simple status check. However, it omits potential edge cases (e.g., behavior if TTS subsystem is unavailable, permission requirements, or side effects). The basic transparency warrants a 3.

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 short sentences that directly convey purpose and behavioral trait. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word serves a purpose: 'Get', fields in parentheses, command reference, and read-only note. No wasted text.

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, the description covers what the tool returns (enabled, provider, voice) and its read-only nature. No output schema exists, so description must provide return context, which it does at a high level. Could be more complete by specifying the exact structure or format of the response, but sufficient for typical use.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a detailed description for the sole 'instance' parameter, covering its role, fallback behavior, and how to list instances. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema. Therefore, the description meets the baseline expectation for high coverage.

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 TTS subsystem status with specific fields (enabled, provider, voice). The verb 'Get' and explicit listing of returned data differentiate it from sibling tools like openclaw_tts_enable, openclaw_tts_disable, etc., making purpose 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 implies read-only use via 'Read-only' and the nature of a status check. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling tool names (e.g., openclaw_tts_enable) clearly indicate modification roles. Lacks explicit exclusion guidance but sufficient for context.

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