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 only states what the tool does (trigonometric calculations) without any information about output format, error handling, precision, domain restrictions (e.g., tan at 90 degrees), or performance characteristics. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase in Chinese that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with no unnecessary words, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the description earns its place by specifying the mathematical operations.

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 complexity (mathematical computation with potential edge cases) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, which are critical for an AI agent to use the tool correctly. The description alone is insufficient for safe and effective invocation.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('function' as trigonometric type and 'angle' as degrees). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as unit conventions or valid angle ranges. However, since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '三角函数计算（sin、cos、tan）' clearly states the tool's purpose: it performs trigonometric calculations (sin, cos, tan). It specifies the exact mathematical functions supported, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'calculate' (generic), 'factorial', 'logarithm', and 'sqrt'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the verb 'calculate' or specify the resource (angles), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 sibling tools or contexts where trigonometric functions are preferred over other mathematical operations. The agent must infer usage based on the function names alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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