turn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, prerequisites, relative/absolute rotation, or undoability. The schema adds angle details, but the description itself contributes no behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though slightly under-specified for a tool with many siblings, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 and the schema's coverage of parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage differentiation and behavioral context, which are important given the large sibling set. The presence of an output schema offsets the need to explain return values, keeping the score at a passing but not strong 3.

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 100%, with both axis and angle clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already provides sufficient semantics for both 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 uses a specific verb ("Rotates") with a clear resource ("camera") and a distinguishing detail ("around an axis"). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like move (translation), zoom, or rock, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., move, orient, turntable), there is no clarification of specific scenarios or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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