get_part_orientation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output content (effective rotation plus r/mirror for XML) and a real caveat ('Arrow signs still need game checks'), which is useful. It does not state whether this is a pure read/compute operation, its permission needs, or limits.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose leads, followed by examples and the output/caveat notes. Every sentence carries information, though the example and caveat lines run long without much structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully explained. Against a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the required 'definition' parameter and its accepted values or format unexplained, which is a real 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The examples do add semantic value by naming valid target keys (mount_normal, span_axis, axle_axis, wheel_reference_up, wheel_forward) and their value form. However, the required 'definition' parameter is never explained, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific action (explain mounting/motion/function axes and solve requested world directions) on a specific resource (part orientation). It is recognizable as an axis-orientation solver distinct from the many vehicle/hull/design siblings. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but no sibling covers this function.

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?

Concrete examples (Fin Rudder, Road wheel) imply when the tool applies, including the mirror case for right placements, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance or statement of when another tool is preferred. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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