double_angle_formulas

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 states the tool calculates functions but does not describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it returns numeric values or symbolic expressions, handles angle units (radians/degrees), manages invalid inputs, or has performance considerations. For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 stating the tool's purpose, followed by domain/category in parentheses. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language. It efficiently communicates the core functionality 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 complexity (trigonometric calculations with parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or provide enough context for reliable use. For a mathematical tool with inputs and implied outputs, more detail is needed to be fully actionable.

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 0% description coverage, with parameters 'angle' (number) and 'function' (enum: sin, cos, tan). The description does not add any semantic information about these parameters, such as what 'angle' represents (e.g., radians, degrees), the meaning of the 'function' enum, or default behavior. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters poorly documented.

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 trigonometric functions using double angle formulas.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('trigonometric functions'), and method ('using double angle formulas'), and includes domain/category context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'half_angle_formulas' or 'sum_difference_formulas', which are related trigonometric identity tools.

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 ('identities'), but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or compare it to sibling tools (e.g., 'half_angle_formulas' or basic trigonometric functions like 'sin', 'cos'). This lack of explicit usage context leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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