Auto-orient objects

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=false) indicate this tool modifies state, and the description adds important behavioral context by noting the async nature and the hardware prerequisite '[needs M4b]'. This goes beyond the structured annotations. It does not disclose side effects on existing orientations, but the core async behavior is well covered.

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, tightly packed sentence: purpose, async behavior, and prerequisite all included with no fluff. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to handle the async execution, and a required condition (M4b). This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and follow up on the tool.

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, and the schema is empty (100% coverage vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none.

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.' This identifies the specific verb (auto-orient), the resource (all objects), and the purpose (for printing), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like transform_object or arrange_plate. The scope ('all objects') adds clarity.

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 context on how to use the tool: it is an async job and you must 'poll get_job_status until idle.' This is practical invocation guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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