rotate_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying command ('adb emu rotate') and the behavioral effect of rotation-driven state loss. However, it does not explain the exact rotation order (e.g., cycles through orientations) or whether it is a toggle, nor does it state if it is destructive or read-only. The description is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the primary action and immediately provide context. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or unnecessary text.

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 simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, underlying command, use case, and constraint. It does not specify return values (likely none) or timing, but these are not critical for such a straightforward action. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'serial', which already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 verb 'rotate' and the resource 'emulator orientation', and it specifies the action as rotating to the next orientation. It also distinguishes the tool's purpose by mentioning it's 'the quick way to exercise landscape/portrait layout and rotation-driven state loss', which uniquely identifies it among the sibling tools.

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 context for when to use this tool: to exercise layout and state loss due to rotation. It explicitly states 'Emulator-only', which is a clear constraint. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, though no direct sibling tool exists for rotation, so the guidance is sufficient.

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