rotate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool sets orientation, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific device states, has side effects (e.g., affecting apps), or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral context (e.g., device requirements, effects), usage guidelines, and output expectations. The high schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral details.

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%, with both parameters ('orientation' and 'platform') well-documented in the schema with enums and descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters. Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('rotate') and the target ('the device'), specifying it sets a specific orientation. It uses a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also manipulate device orientation, though none are explicitly listed among siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., device must be active), exclusions, or related tools. Among siblings, tools like 'setDeviceMode' or 'shake' might be alternatives in some contexts, but no comparison is made.

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