asec

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 calculates, without mentioning input constraints (e.g., valid range for 'value'), error handling, output format, or computational characteristics. For a mathematical function tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 and front-loaded: it directly states the tool's purpose in the first phrase, followed by brief domain/category context. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 mathematical nature, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not cover input constraints, output format, error conditions, or mathematical properties, which are essential for correct usage. The domain/category hints are insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'value' parameter beyond what the schema provides (type: number). It lacks details on the parameter's meaning (e.g., input to arcsecant function), valid ranges (e.g., |value| ≥ 1 for real arcsecant), or units. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 arcsecant (inverse secant).' It specifies the verb ('calculate') and resource ('arcsecant'), and adds domain/category context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'asech' (inverse hyperbolic secant) or 'acsc' (inverse cosecant), which are related inverse trigonometric functions.

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 ('inverse_functions'), but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'asech' or 'acsc'. This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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