tan

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 discloses key behavioral traits: 'Calculate tangent' implies a read-only computation, and 'with singularity handling' suggests it manages undefined cases (e.g., returns an error or special value). However, it doesn't specify error handling details, performance characteristics, or output format. The description adds some context but lacks depth on behavioral aspects.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and key feature ('singularity handling'), and the second provides domain/category context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic operation and unit, but lacks details on return values (e.g., numeric result or error), edge cases beyond singularity, or examples. For a mathematical function, more context on output behavior would be beneficial, though the simplicity keeps it adequate.

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 ('angle') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds meaning by specifying the angle must be 'in radians', which clarifies the unit beyond the schema's 'number' type. However, it doesn't explain valid ranges, constraints (e.g., handling of large angles), or the effect of singularity handling on parameter values. Baseline is 3 due to low schema coverage, with the description partially compensating.

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 tangent of an angle in radians with singularity handling.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('tangent'), and domain ('trigonometry'), distinguishing it from other trigonometric tools like 'tan_degrees' or 'tanh'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'atan' (inverse tangent) or other trigonometric functions beyond the category label.

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 implies usage through context: 'Domain: trigonometry, Category: basic_functions' suggests it's for trigonometric calculations. It mentions 'singularity handling', which hints at when the tool is applicable (angles where tangent is undefined, like π/2). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tan_degrees' (for degrees) or other trigonometric functions, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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