trigonometry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates functions in degrees but doesn't mention error handling (e.g., for invalid inputs like tan(90)), performance characteristics, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a computational tool.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying functions and units clearly.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally explain the return value (e.g., a numeric result) and any behavioral constraints, which it doesn't do.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('function' with enum values and 'angle' as a number in degrees). The description adds minimal value by specifying 'in degrees' for the angle, but this is implied in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 tool calculates trigonometric functions (sin, cos, tan, asin, acos, atan) in degrees, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate' or 'solve_equation', which might also handle mathematical operations.

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 like 'calculate' or 'solve_equation'. It mentions the functions and units but doesn't specify contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites for choosing this tool over siblings.

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