rotate

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the foldable simulator anomaly, the device-vs-UI orientation difference, the return value, the failure condition, and the fact that frame coordinates change with orientation.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage guidance, foldable caveat, return value, and failure mode. The description is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret the result. It covers purpose, post-conditions, return shape, failure cases, and a device-specific edge case.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics for the `orientation` parameter by explaining the iPad Duo foldable-specific mapping, which is not in the enum description. The `udid` parameter gains no new detail, but the schema already covers 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the device orientation', and enumerates all four permitted values. This clearly distinguishes it from related sibling tools like `fold` and `gesture-rotate`.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use to test layout in a different orientation.' It also provides a follow-up action (re-run `describe`) and routes fold/unfold operations to the `fold` sibling, giving clear guidance on alternatives.

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