csch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the basic function by mentioning 'singularity handling,' which informs the agent about potential edge cases (e.g., near zero where sinh(x) approaches zero). However, it doesn't detail error handling, return formats, or performance characteristics, leaving some gaps.

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 highly concise and well-structured in a single sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Calculate hyperbolic cosecant (1/sinh) with singularity handling') and efficiently adds domain/category context. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a mathematical function. It covers the core operation and a key behavioral trait (singularity handling). However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or examples, which could enhance completeness for 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 one parameter 'x' with 0% description coverage. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'x' is a number for the hyperbolic cosecant calculation. It doesn't explain units, valid ranges, or the effect of singularity handling on input values. With low schema coverage, the description compensates minimally, meeting the baseline.

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 cosecant (1/sinh) with singularity handling.' It specifies the mathematical operation (calculate hyperbolic cosecant), the formula (1/sinh), and a key behavioral aspect (singularity handling). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'csch' (which might be a duplicate or variant) or other hyperbolic functions, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. It mentions 'Domain: trigonometry, Category: hyperbolic,' which gives some context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sinh', 'csch', or other hyperbolic functions in the sibling list. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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