cos_series

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 method (Taylor series) but doesn't describe key behaviors: what 'n' represents (number of terms?), accuracy implications, computational complexity, error handling, or output format. For a computational tool with zero 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 concise (one sentence with parenthetical note) and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, though it could benefit from more detail. The structure is efficient but under-specified rather than overly verbose.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a computational tool with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output expectations. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool correctly compared to siblings like 'cos'.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no information about what 'x' and 'n' mean (e.g., 'x' is the angle in radians? 'n' is the number of series terms?). It must compensate for the schema gap but fails to do so, leaving both parameters semantically undefined.

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: 'Compute cosine function using Taylor series expansion'. It specifies the verb ('compute'), resource ('cosine function'), and method ('Taylor series expansion'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cos' or 'cos_degrees', which likely compute cosine directly rather than via series expansion.

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 minimal usage guidance with 'Domain: numerical, Category: series', but this is vague and doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cos' or 'cos_degrees'. No explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives are provided, leaving the agent with little practical guidance.

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