Get Orientation

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already disclose that this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds minimal context beyond that—only that it retrieves orientation. It does not describe the return format (e.g., portrait/landscape or degrees) or any edge cases. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. The only gap is that it does not specify what the returned orientation values look like (e.g., 'portrait' vs 'landscape'), which an agent might need to interpret the result. Given the lack of an output schema, a brief note on return format would improve completeness, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a critical omission.

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%, so the 'device' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including a pointer to mobile_list_available_devices. The description adds no additional parameter information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('current screen orientation of the device'). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling mobile_set_orientation, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction. It is not tautological and communicates the core purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is read-only (though readOnlyHint annotation covers that), nor does it reference the related setter or other device info tools. The device parameter description points to a sibling for finding devices, but that is about parameter selection, not usage context.

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