angular_velocity_from_period_or_frequency

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 mentions the calculation but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it requires exactly one of period or frequency, how it handles invalid inputs (e.g., negative values), the output format (e.g., radians per second), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single sentence. The domain and category in parentheses add context without verbosity. However, the lack of elaboration on parameters or usage slightly undermines efficiency, as the agent may need to infer or test details.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the input constraints (e.g., period and frequency are likely mutually exclusive), the output (angular velocity in what units?), or error handling. For a calculation tool with multiple parameters and no structured guidance, this leaves too much undefined for reliable use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'period or frequency' without explaining their roles, units, or interdependencies (e.g., mutual exclusivity). The 'unit' parameter and its enum values ('seconds', 'hz') are not addressed, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and how they relate to the calculation.

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 states the tool calculates angular velocity from period or frequency, which clarifies the purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about the exact mathematical relationship (e.g., ω = 2π/T or ω = 2πf) and doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'frequency_from_period' or other trigonometric/conversion tools, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling tool selection.

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 doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., whether it handles only positive values, specific units beyond the schema). Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent must infer usage from context alone.

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