fs_image_rotate

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 key behavior—expanding the canvas to retain full content—but does not mention side effects such as file overwriting, permission requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. This is an adequate but incomplete disclosure.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise.

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?

While the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description lacks critical parameter semantics and edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens with non-90-degree rotations). With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it does not. The description mentions rotation but gives no meaning to 'degrees' or directionality. This is a significant gap—the agent has no information about what values the parameters should take or their formats.

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 identifies the tool's function: rotating an image clockwise. It specifies the resource (image) and the action (rotate), and the additional detail about expanding the canvas distinguishes it from sibling tools like fs_image_resize and fs_image_crop.

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 implies when to use the tool (when rotation is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides clear context but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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