angle_difference

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 the 'shortest angular difference,' implying a mathematical computation, but does not describe output format (e.g., range of results, handling of negative values, or unit consistency). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds domain/category context, which is useful but not essential. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (mathematical computation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, and parameter usage. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context would help distinguish it, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 description does not mention any parameters, while the input schema covers 3 parameters (angle1, angle2, unit) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no semantic information about what the parameters represent or how they interact (e.g., that unit applies to both angles). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, but the tool's purpose inherently implies the parameters, so a baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate the shortest angular difference between two angles.' It specifies the verb ('calculate') and resource ('angular difference'), and includes domain/category context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_angle' or 'normalize_angle', which might handle related angle 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. It mentions the domain ('trigonometry') and category ('angle_conversion'), but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'convert_angle' for unit conversion, 'normalize_angle' for angle wrapping). This leaves the agent without explicit usage context.

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