Auto-orient objects

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

The description discloses that the operation is asynchronous, which is a key behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It also notes that it affects all objects, adding context. The annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict this.

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 a single sentence that packs purpose and usage into one line. It is front-loaded and every word adds value, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral context: it's async and requires polling get_job_status. It might also clarify the return value, but the instruction implies a job handle. Overall, it's sufficient.

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 coverage is complete. Under the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate on any parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: auto-orient all objects for printing, with a specific verb (auto-orient) and resource (all objects). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arrange_plate or transform_object.

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 provides clear usage context by noting it's an async job and instructing to poll get_job_status until idle. This is a crucial operational guideline, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like transform_object or arrange_plate.

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