Set the device orientation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that screenshots reflect the rotation and that tap coordinates change accordingly, which is critical for an agent to understand downstream effects. It also explains the underlying toolchain. It does not mention prerequisites like booted simulator or potential errors, but the key behavioral consequence is well covered.

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 action and values are front-loaded, followed by a relevant technical note and a practical consequence. The structure is tight and scannable.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the important side effect on coordinates. It omits potential prerequisites like simulator boot status, but given the sibling tool set includes boot_device and the action is straightforward, the completeness is strong but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear enum description ('target orientation'). The description repeats the enum values but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 but 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 resource (simulator) and enumerates the four possible values, making the action unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_orientation and other device tools by specifying the exact operation.

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 usage by naming the toolchain (devicectl) and noting why simctl isn't used, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion conditions. The presence of get_orientation as a sibling makes the read/write distinction obvious, but no direct guidance is given.

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