sec

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. While it states the mathematical operation and input format, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens when cos(angle)=0), output format, precision, or computational characteristics. The description is mathematically correct but operationally incomplete.

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 well-structured. The first sentence directly states the tool's function and input requirements, while the parenthetical adds useful categorization without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 simplicity (single input, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic operation and input format but lacks information about output format, error conditions, and practical usage context. For a basic mathematical function, this is minimally viable but could be more complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It specifies that the parameter 'angle' should be in radians, which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type declaration. However, it doesn't provide additional details like valid ranges, special values, or units beyond radians. With one parameter and partial semantic information, this meets the baseline expectation.

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 secant (1/cos) of an angle in radians.' It specifies the mathematical operation (calculate secant), the input (angle in radians), and provides domain/category context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling trigonometric tools like 'csc' (cosecant) or 'cos' (cosine), which would be needed for 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 the domain (trigonometry) and category (basic_functions), but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cos' or other trigonometric functions. There's no mention of typical use cases, edge cases, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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