sympy_tan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits such as whether it works with symbolic expressions, returns exact values, or handles complex inputs. The simple phrase 'Tangent function' lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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 only two words, which is overly concise. While conciseness is valued, this under-specification leaves critical information missing. It does not earn its place because it fails to inform the agent beyond the tool's name.

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 relatively low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description should still provide context about usage, domain, and behavior. It lacks any such detail, making it insufficient for an agent to determine correct use.

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 description coverage is 100% (the parameter 'expr' has description 'Expression (in radians)'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Tangent function,' which identifies the mathematical operation. It is specific about the resource (tangent) and implies the verb (compute). However, it does not distinguish it from sibling functions like sympy_sin, sympy_cos, or sympy_tanh, which could cause confusion.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like sympy_atan (inverse tangent) or sympy_tanh (hyperbolic tangent). In a large set of sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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