orientation_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a fallback behavior (deriving orientation from screenshot when native backend is unavailable) and implies a read-only operation. It does not mention any side effects, return format, or error cases, but the disclosed fallback is a valuable behavioral trait.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the fallback detail is provided efficiently. Every sentence adds value.

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 (1 required param, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the fallback behavior, which is a key detail. However, it does not specify the format of the returned orientation (e.g., string like 'portrait' or 'landscape'), which is a minor gap.

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 provides 100% description coverage with 'Simulator UDID'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains the parameter adequately.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the current orientation of a booted iOS simulator. The verb 'Returns' and specific resource 'current orientation' leave no ambiguity. The sibling tool 'orientation_set' implicitly differentiates the get vs set use case.

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 does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. It explains the underlying method (native backend vs screenshot) but lacks guidance on prerequisites or when to prefer one over the other. The use case is implied but not explicitly contrasted with 'orientation_set'.

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