sympy_atan

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It fails to disclose any behavior such as principal value range, branch cuts, domain restrictions, or error conditions. This is insufficient for an AI agent to anticipate side effects or validation.

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 at two words, but conciseness requires that every sentence earns its place. Here, the description is too sparse, missing useful context that could be provided without verbosity.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., the angle in radians). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the result. More contextual details about domain (e.g., real vs. complex) are missing.

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 single parameter 'expr' has a schema description 'Expression,' and the tool description adds no further semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description merely repeats the schema information without adding meaning.

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 'Arc tangent.' correctly identifies the mathematical function but lacks a verb and does not explicitly state that it computes the inverse tangent of the expression. It is clear enough for a simple function but fails to distinguish from siblings like sympy_asin or sympy_acos beyond the name.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. The agent receives no help in selecting between sympy_atan and other trig/inverse trig functions.

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