Skip to content

config: clarify tools.profile help text#39963

Closed
posigit wants to merge 1 commit into
openclaw:mainfrom
posigit:config/tools-profile-help-clarity
Closed

config: clarify tools.profile help text#39963
posigit wants to merge 1 commit into
openclaw:mainfrom
posigit:config/tools-profile-help-clarity

Conversation

@posigit

@posigit posigit commented Mar 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • clarify the schema help text for tools.profile
  • clarify the schema help text for agents.list[].tools.profile
  • explain that messaging is intentionally narrow and full provides the broadest command/control surface

Why

A valid tools.profile setting can still be surprising in practice. In messaging-first setups, tools.profile: "messaging" can make an assistant feel unexpectedly limited even though the behavior is intentional. This change makes that tradeoff clearer directly in config help text, where users encounter it during setup.

Changes

  • update tools.profile help text to describe its practical effect on the default tool surface
  • call out messaging vs full explicitly
  • update per-agent agents.list[].tools.profile help text with a concrete override example

What did not change

  • no runtime behavior
  • no schema values or validation rules
  • no tool policy logic

Change Type

  • Bug fix
  • Feature
  • Refactor
  • Docs
  • Security hardening
  • Chore/infra

Scope

  • Gateway / orchestration
  • Skills / tool execution
  • Auth / tokens
  • Memory / storage
  • Integrations
  • API / contracts
  • UI / DX
  • CI/CD / infra

Linked Issue/PR

User-visible / Behavior Changes

Users reading generated config help text will get clearer guidance about when messaging is intentionally restrictive and when full is a better fit. No runtime behavior changes.

Security Impact

  • New permissions/capabilities? (No)
  • Secrets/tokens handling changed? (No)
  • New/changed network calls? (No)
  • Command/tool execution surface changed? (No)
  • Data access scope changed? (No)
  • If any Yes, explain risk + mitigation:

Repro + Verification

Environment

  • OS: Windows 11
  • Runtime/container: local clone
  • Model/provider: n/a
  • Integration/channel (if any): n/a
  • Relevant config (redacted): tools.profile, agents.list[].tools.profile

Steps

  1. Open src/config/schema.help.ts
  2. Inspect the help text for tools.profile and agents.list[].tools.profile
  3. Compare before/after wording

Expected

  • help text explains the practical difference between narrower and broader profile choices
  • users can understand why a messaging-first setup may feel limited

Actual

  • updated help text now calls out messaging and full directly and gives a clearer per-agent override example

Evidence

  • Trace/log snippets
  • Failing test/log before + passing after
  • Screenshot/recording
  • Perf numbers (if relevant)

Human Verification

  • Verified scenarios: reviewed the exact diff and confirmed the wording matches current documented profile behavior
  • Edge cases checked: per-agent override wording remains additive/helpful without implying behavior changes
  • What you did not verify: full local test execution in this clone environment

Review Conversations

  • I replied to or resolved every bot review conversation I addressed in this PR.
  • I left unresolved only the conversations that still need reviewer or maintainer judgment.

Compatibility / Migration

  • Backward compatible? (Yes)
  • Config/env changes? (No)
  • Migration needed? (No)
  • If yes, exact upgrade steps:

Failure Recovery (if this breaks)

  • How to disable/revert this change quickly: revert this commit
  • Files/config to restore: src/config/schema.help.ts
  • Known bad symptoms reviewers should watch for: misleading wording or overclaiming behavior

Risks and Mitigations

  • Risk: wording may be considered too prescriptive for help text
  • Mitigation: kept the change limited to clarifying current documented behavior without changing schema or runtime

@greptile-apps

greptile-apps Bot commented Mar 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Greptile Summary

This PR updates two help text strings in src/config/schema.help.ts to clarify the practical effect of the tools.profile and agents.list[].tools.profile configuration fields. No schema values, validation rules, or runtime behavior are changed.

  • The tools.profile help text now explicitly names messaging (intentionally narrow) and full (broadest surface), and adds a troubleshooting hint for setups where an assistant feels unexpectedly limited.
  • The agents.list[].tools.profile help text adds a concrete per-agent override example referencing messaging, full, and coding — all of which are valid ToolProfileId literals confirmed in src/config/types.tools.ts.
  • One minor observation: the minimal profile (the most restrictive valid value) is not mentioned in either updated string. Users who set profile: "minimal" and encounter limitations may not be guided by these hints. This is a low-priority gap, but worth noting for a follow-up if further clarification is desired.

Confidence Score: 5/5

  • This PR is safe to merge — it is a pure documentation change with no impact on runtime behavior, schema validation, or tool policy logic.
  • Only two help-text strings are modified. All profile names referenced (messaging, full, coding) are confirmed valid ToolProfileId literals in the codebase. No logic, schema, or test changes are included.
  • No files require special attention.

Last reviewed commit: fce2f80

@openclaw-barnacle

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale due to inactivity.
Please add updates or it will be closed.

@openclaw-barnacle openclaw-barnacle Bot added the stale Marked as stale due to inactivity label Apr 25, 2026
@clawsweeper

clawsweeper Bot commented Apr 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thanks for the context here. I swept through the related work, and this is now duplicate or superseded.

Keep this PR open: the schema-help wording is still a unique generated-config-help change on top of the merged docs work, but it is not merge-ready because the config docs baseline hash is not updated and external real behavior proof is still missing.

Canonical path: Close this stale PR. The latest review rated it F, the branch still lacks merge-ready proof, and there has been no human follow-up after the durable review.

So I’m closing this here because the remaining work is already tracked in the canonical issue.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Close this stale PR. The latest review rated it F, the branch still lacks merge-ready proof, and there has been no human follow-up after the durable review.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Yes for the review finding: source inspection shows FIELD_HELP flows into generated schema descriptions and config baseline entries. The PR itself is a docs/DX wording change, not a runtime bug reproduction.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

No, not as-is. src/config/schema.help.ts is the right source surface, but the branch also needs the regenerated config-docs baseline hash and contributor-supplied generated-help proof before merge.

Security review:

Security review cleared: The diff only changes config help strings and does not touch dependencies, CI, secrets, permissions, or code-execution paths.

What I checked:

  • stale F-rated PR: PR was opened 2026-03-08T14:58:18Z, is older than 60 days, and the latest review rated it F.
  • proof blocker: real behavior proof is missing and proof tier is F, so this branch is not merge-ready without contributor follow-up.
  • no human follow-up: live comments and timeline hydrated by apply contain no non-automation activity after the ClawSweeper review.

Likely related people:

  • steipete: Current-main blame for the relevant src/config/schema.help.ts lines points to recent config-help maintenance, and GitHub path history shows repeated config baseline helper work including the SHA-256 baseline refactor. (role: recent config schema and generated-baseline contributor; confidence: high; commits: dd07fb400fc5, b5265a07d7e0, 4efce5957130; files: src/config/schema.help.ts, src/config/doc-baseline.ts, scripts/generate-config-doc-baseline.ts)
  • posigit: They authored the merged related docs clarification for the same messaging versus full profile confusion, beyond only opening this PR. (role: adjacent tool-profile docs contributor; confidence: medium; commits: c51e315f3ac6; files: docs/tools/index.md, scripts/changed-lanes.mjs, test/scripts/changed-lanes.test.ts)
  • vincentkoc: GitHub path history shows this handle on the merged config drift baseline work that created and split the generated config docs baseline machinery this PR needs to refresh. (role: generated config baseline contributor; confidence: medium; commits: cbec476b6b70, f5c3b409ea74; files: src/config/doc-baseline.ts, scripts/generate-config-doc-baseline.ts, docs/.generated/config-baseline.sha256)

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against d7a078f1962b.

@openclaw-barnacle openclaw-barnacle Bot removed the stale Marked as stale due to inactivity label Apr 26, 2026
@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot added the P3 Low-priority cleanup, docs, polish, ergonomics, or speculative work. label May 16, 2026
@openclaw-barnacle openclaw-barnacle Bot added the triage: needs-real-behavior-proof Candidate: external PR needs after-fix proof from a real setup. label May 16, 2026
@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot added rating: 🧂 unranked krab Not merge-ready due to missing proof or serious correctness/safety concerns. status: 📣 needs proof The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. merge-risk: 🚨 automation 🚨 May affect CI, automerge, proof capture, label sync, or maintainer automation. labels May 18, 2026
@clawsweeper

clawsweeper Bot commented May 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

ClawSweeper PR egg

🎁 Pass real behavior proof to wake the egg and unlock a hatchable treat.

Where did the egg go?
  • The egg game starts only after the PR passes the real-behavior proof check.
  • Before that, no creature or rarity is rolled. The treat waits for real proof.
  • This is still just collectible flavor: proof affects review readiness, not creature quality.

@clawsweeper

clawsweeper Bot commented May 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

ClawSweeper applied the proposed close for this PR.

@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot closed this May 23, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

merge-risk: 🚨 automation 🚨 May affect CI, automerge, proof capture, label sync, or maintainer automation. P3 Low-priority cleanup, docs, polish, ergonomics, or speculative work. rating: 🧂 unranked krab Not merge-ready due to missing proof or serious correctness/safety concerns. size: XS status: 📣 needs proof The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. triage: needs-real-behavior-proof Candidate: external PR needs after-fix proof from a real setup.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant