rotate

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., app rerender), immediacy, or whether the device must be active. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate outcomes.

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, succinct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it might be too brief, borderline under-specified, but for sheer conciseness it scores well.

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 has 22 parameters and no output schema, the description is overly minimal. It does not explain the effect of rotation, the role of device selection parameters, or what the agent can expect as a result. Essential context is 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?

Schema description coverage is 95%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the only required parameter 'orientation' is fully described in the schema. No param-specific elaboration is given.

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 'Rotate device orientation.' clearly states the action and the target resource. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, though it could be slightly more detailed about what rotation entails. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like 'gesture' or 'scroll' by focusing on orientation change.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gesture' or 'swipe'. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a connected device, or any conditions. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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