detect_tilt

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description explicitly says it never modifies the image, describes processing stages (Canny/Hough then projection-profile refinement), discloses response-size behavior (score curve omitted by default), and defines the null recommended-angle sentinel. This gives an agent strong expectations for side effects and outputs.

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 front-loaded with purpose and method, and each clause adds useful context. It is slightly dense and contains a minor punctuation issue ('roll,' followed by 'Set'), but no sentence is padding.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description supplies the remaining operational context: algorithm, default response size, read-only behavior, and the meaning of null. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains revision_id, max_abs_angle, and include_score_curve. The description reinforces include_score_curve's behavior and adds 'to keep the answer small', but it contributes little beyond the schema and does not deepen revision_id or max_abs_angle semantics.

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 opening states a specific verb and resource: 'Detect the tilt (roll) of a revision' rather than a generic or tautological phrase. It also details what the tool returns (horizontal-only and vertical-only estimates, optional score curve), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like detect_document.

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?

Clear context is given: the tool is for measuring roll/tilt of a revision, and the description explains how to interpret disagreement between estimates and when to set include_score_curve=true. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings such as apply_transform or detect_document.

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