angle_properties

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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what 'properties and equivalent representations' actually means in practice, nor does it mention any constraints, limitations, or output format expectations. This leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 with just one sentence containing the core functionality and domain/category context. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately for a simple tool.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'properties and equivalent representations' means, doesn't guide usage relative to similar sibling tools, and provides minimal parameter context. The conciseness comes at the expense of necessary completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions 'angle properties and equivalent representations' but doesn't explain what the 'angle' and 'unit' parameters actually do or how they relate to the tool's functionality. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's implied by the parameter names themselves.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('angle properties and equivalent representations'), and it provides domain/category context. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_angle' or 'normalize_angle', which appear to be related angle manipulation tools in the same server.

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. With sibling tools like 'convert_angle' and 'normalize_angle' available, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's functionality from those similar tools, leaving the agent without usage context.

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