normalize_angle

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 what the tool does but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify the standard range (e.g., [0, 2π) for positive radians or [-π, π) for symmetric), whether it handles edge cases like large angles, or what the output format is. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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—a single sentence with a parenthetical note—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or verbose phrasing. It efficiently communicates the essential idea 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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the normalization behavior, output format, or parameter interactions. While conciseness is high, it sacrifices necessary context for a tool that performs a non-trivial mathematical operation with multiple configuration options.

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 description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no information about the three parameters (angle, unit, range_type) beyond what the schema provides (types, enums, defaults). The description doesn't explain what 'normalize' means in terms of these parameters or their interactions, leaving semantics unclear.

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: 'Normalize an angle to a standard range.' It specifies the domain (trigonometry) and category (angle_conversion), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_angle' or 'angle_difference', which could have overlapping functionality.

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 and category but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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