find_robot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two important traits: the audible side effect and the ROOMBA_ALLOW_WRITES=1 prerequisite. It does not explain what happens if the prerequisite is missing or whether there are constraints such as the robot needing to be connected, but the key write-gate behavior is surfaced.

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 with the core action first and the prerequisite second. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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 zero-parameter, side-effect tool with an output schema already defined, the description covers the action and the environment prerequisite. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying failure behavior when ROOMBA_ALLOW_WRITES is not set, but the essential information is present.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to explain, and the description appropriately does not invent any.

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 states a specific action and effect: making the robot play its locating sound. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_status or get_robot_info, which retrieve data rather than trigger an audible locating behavior.

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 phrase 'locating sound' implies the use case of finding a lost robot, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_status or get_robot_info. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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