tan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the basic function, omitting edge cases like tan(pi/2) returning infinity or errors, precision, or domain limitations. This is insufficient for safe usage.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It doesn't describe the return value (e.g., a number) or handle edge cases, which are important for a mathematical function.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no new meaning beyond what the parameter description already provides. The baseline is 3, with no extra value.

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 calculates the tangent of a number in radians, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling trigonometric tools like sin, cos, and arctan.

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 for tangent calculations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it could mention when to prefer tan over sin/cos or when to use arctan for inverse.

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