Compare Orientations

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the key side effect: 'This rotates the device and leaves it in portrait.' This is important behavioral information an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It leads with the core action, provides a useful analogy, and ends with the important side effect. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and side effects well. However, the device parameter is completely undocumented, which leaves a real gap for correct invocation. The output schema may cover return values, but parameter semantics remain missing.

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 schema has one parameter, device, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions this parameter at all. It does not explain what device accepts, whether null means default/active device, or how it affects the comparison. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema coverage.

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 operation: run detect_issues in both portrait and landscape and diff the findings. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling detect_issues by framing it as the Android counterpart of cross-breakpoint web checking, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when comparing Android layout/issue findings across orientations, analogous to checking web breakpoints. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or alternative single-orientation tools, but the intent is clear from the wording.

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