screen_orientation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this changes the device orientation, what side effects occur, whether the change persists, how the serial parameter affects behavior, or what response is returned.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the key values, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified: it lacks an explicit operation, parameter explanations, and any usage context, making it less usable than its brevity might suggest.

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?

While the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description remains incomplete for safe invocation. It does not explain the serial parameter, when to use this tool, or what effect the rotation setting has on the device, leaving important gaps in an otherwise minimal description.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It adds useful allowed values for rotation ('auto', 'portrait', 'landscape', 'landscape_reverse'), but it entirely omits any meaning for the 'serial' parameter, which is especially relevant for a device-oriented tool.

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 the resource (screen orientation) and the allowed modes, which makes the tool's purpose reasonably clear for an agent. However, it uses a Hungarian noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'set', and it does not differentiate itself from siblings beyond the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of conditions or prerequisites, and no indication of how it relates to tools like screen_state or set_mode. The description only lists possible values, leaving usage context entirely to inference.

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