dreame_onboard

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: it targets DreameHome cloud rather than local APIs, requires environment variables, and explicitly rules out token-based discovery ('No network discovery or miio token needed'). It does not, however, clarify whether the tool mutates host state (writes env vars, uses the clone path) or is purely informational, leaving idempotency and side effects ambiguous.

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 compact: a front-loaded title line, three short sentences of setup context, and a Returns line. There is minor redundancy between 'no local token' in the first line and 'No network discovery or miio token needed' in the body, but overall every sentence earns its place and the structure is scannable.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it names the device, the API used, the prerequisites, what is not needed, and what will be returned. The clear gaps are an explicit 'use this when...' statement and a note on whether the setup flow modifies the system — both of which matter for an agent deciding whether to invoke it safely.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to contradict. The description compensates by documenting the external configuration inputs — environment variables and the optional Tasshack ref clone path — which are the actual 'inputs' this tool consumes, going beyond what the schema could express.

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 verb and resource: 'Dreame D20 Pro Plus — DreameHome cloud setup (no local token).' It clearly differentiates this from local-discovery/miio-token flows by stating 'No network discovery or miio token needed,' which separates it from the robot-control and simulation siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tool it is not (e.g., dreame_control), but an agent can confidently identify this as the cloud-onboarding tool.

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 when to use it: when you need to onboard a Dreame D20 via the DreameHome cloud API rather than local discovery, and it clarifies prerequisites ('Set environment variables and optionally the Tasshack ref clone path'). However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names an alternative tool for local/control operations, so the agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list.

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