tanh

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 adds 'saturation handling', which hints at numerical behavior for extreme inputs, but doesn't detail error handling, input ranges, or output format. For a mathematical function with no annotations, this is minimal but not entirely absent.

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: one sentence plus domain/category tags. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes supplementary context efficiently.

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 a simple mathematical function with 1 parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It states what the tool does and adds a behavioral hint ('saturation handling'), but lacks details on input constraints, output format, or error conditions. For this complexity level, it's passable but not thorough.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description doesn't mention the parameter 'x' or its meaning. However, for a simple hyperbolic tangent function, the parameter is self-explanatory (input number), so the baseline 3 is appropriate despite the lack of explicit parameter semantics in the description.

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 hyperbolic tangent with saturation handling.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('hyperbolic tangent'), and adds a behavioral detail ('saturation handling'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'atanh' or 'sinh', which are also hyperbolic functions, though the domain/category tags help.

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 'Domain: trigonometry, Category: hyperbolic' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling hyperbolic tools like 'atanh' or 'sinh'. The agent must infer usage from the name and category alone.

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