responsive_orientation

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It gives no behavioral details such as whether the tool detects orientation changes, applies animations, or requires external triggers.

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?

Extremely short but not valuable. It lacks front-loaded critical information and every word is wasted. A useful description would be concise but informative.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 3 required, and nesting, the description is completely insufficient. No output schema, no explanation of return values or side effects. The context signals indicate complexity, but the description fails to address it.

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?

Schema coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the expected structure of the nested objects (portraitAnimation, landscapeAnimation) or how target selector is used.

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?

Description is a Chinese phrase meaning 'responsive orientation change', which is a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify the action (detect, apply, animate?) or distinguish from sibling tools like responsive_breakpoint or responsive_scaling.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focusing on animations and responsiveness, the description provides no context to aid selection.

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