sin_degrees

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 states the calculation behavior but lacks critical details: it does not mention input validation (e.g., handling of non-numeric inputs or special values like NaN/infinity), error handling, output format, or precision/rounding behavior. For a mathematical tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence directly states the tool's purpose. The additional domain/category information is brief and relevant. There is no redundant or verbose language, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output (e.g., returns a number, error cases), behavioral traits (e.g., periodicity, special angles), and does not reference sibling tools for context. For a basic function tool in a large set, more guidance is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 one parameter 'angle_degrees' of type 'number'. The description adds minimal semantics by specifying the parameter is 'an angle in degrees,' but does not elaborate on allowed ranges (e.g., any real number, periodic behavior), units, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description provides basic context but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 sine of an angle in degrees.' It specifies the mathematical function (sine), the input unit (degrees), and includes domain/category context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'sin' (which likely calculates sine in radians), leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Domain: trigonometry, Category: basic_functions,' which implies a general context but does not specify when to prefer this over 'sin' (radians) or other trigonometric tools. There are no usage prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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