csc

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 mentions the input ('angle in radians') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for angles where sin=0), output format, or computational limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational details.

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, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted language, and it efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output values, error conditions, and practical usage examples, making it insufficient for an AI agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional context.

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%, but the description adds meaning by specifying that the parameter is an 'angle in radians'. However, it does not provide further details like valid ranges, units, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description offers basic but incomplete semantic context.

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 ('Calculate'), resource ('cosecant'), and mathematical definition ('1/sin of an angle in radians'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'sin', 'csc', and 'acsc' by specifying it's a trigonometric function for cosecant calculation.

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. While it mentions the domain (trigonometry) and category (basic_functions), it does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to related tools like 'sin' or 'acsc' for inverse cosecant.

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