get_screen_rotation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON string) and the mapping of numeric values to orientations, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, permissions needed, or whether this requires screen to be on/active, leaving some gaps.

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?

Extremely concise and well-structured: one sentence for the purpose, one for the return format with explicit mapping. Every sentence adds value, and the return details are front-loaded after the core purpose. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 params, simple output), the description is reasonably complete: it states the purpose and documents the return value mapping. With an output schema present (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to fully explain return values, but it usefully adds the orientation mapping. Minor gaps remain in error handling or prerequisites.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the screen rotation' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like get_screen_info or get_screenshot by focusing specifically on rotation state. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alternatives, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_screen_info (which might include rotation) or other device-state tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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