cosh

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'numerical stability' as a key behavioral trait, which is valuable for understanding performance with large/small inputs. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like error handling, input constraints (e.g., domain limits), or output format. The description adds some context but is incomplete for a computational tool.

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: a single sentence that states the core purpose and key trait, followed by domain/category tags. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple mathematical 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 no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a stability trait but misses parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details like error handling. For a computational tool with one parameter, more guidance is needed to be fully helpful to an agent.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the parameter 'x' at all, nor explain its meaning (e.g., input angle in radians). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the bare schema provides, leaving the parameter undocumented. Baseline is 3 due to low schema coverage but lack of compensation.

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 hyperbolic cosine with numerical stability.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('hyperbolic cosine'), and a key behavioral trait ('numerical stability'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling hyperbolic tools like 'cosh' (implied) or 'acosh', though the domain/category tags help.

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 'Domain: trigonometry, Category: hyperbolic' which gives general context, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings like 'cosh' (if present) or other hyperbolic functions. No explicit when/when-not instructions are included.

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