dock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavioral fact: this is a write operation gated behind ROOMBA_ALLOW_WRITES=1. It does not say whether docking interrupts an in-progress cleaning mission, what happens if the robot is already docked, or what errors occur when the robot cannot find its dock.

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 sentences, action first and prerequisite second, with zero filler. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and there are no parameters to document. But for a mutation command with no annotations, the description should note side effects such as cancelling an active mission or behavior when already docked; those gaps matter for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb+object action ("send the robot back to its dock") that is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling commands like start_clean, pause_clean, or stop_clean. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action is unique enough in the toolset that no differentiation is needed.

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 prerequisite ROOMBA_ALLOW_WRITES=1 is a real usage condition that tells the agent when the call will succeed, which is more than nothing. However, it gives no guidance on when to dock versus when to stop or pause a mission, and no exclusions or preconditions about the robot's current state.

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