gateway_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reports status including whether the process is alive/dead and flags a security-relevant binding. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only status tool, this is adequate.

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?

Two short, dense sentences contain all necessary information without wasted words. The structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive list of output fields and a notable security flag. It is sufficiently complete for the agent to understand the tool's function and return value.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the expected output fields (uptime, restarts, etc.), exceeding the baseline by providing concrete details about what the tool returns.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns the status of the OpenClaw gateway process, listing specific attributes (alive/dead, uptime, restarts, bind address, PID). It also uniquely flags a security concern (0.0.0.0 binding), clearly distinguishing it from sibling health check tools.

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?

Usage context is implied through the description of the tool's purpose (gateway status) among sibling health tools, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives or when not to use it is provided.

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