advanced_math

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavioral details: trig functions accept unit='degrees' for conversion, inverse trig return degrees with that unit, pow uses exponent, and domain rules for log/ln, sqrt, factorial, and exp. It does not detail error handling or return formatting, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, then provides necessary behavioral specifics in a structured way. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 complexity of 14 functions and 4 parameters, the description covers key aspects: unit behavior, exponent usage, and domain constraints for the most error-prone functions. It does not explicitly mention trivial functions like 'abs' or error output, but the output schema exists and the core constraints are well covered.

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 only 25%, but the description adds significant meaning: it clarifies the 'unit' parameter for trig/inverse trig functions, explains that 'exponent' is used by 'pow', and provides domain rules for specific functions. This compensates well for the sparse schema descriptions.

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 it performs advanced mathematical functions (trigonometry, logarithms, etc.), with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like basic_math by explicitly positioning itself as advanced.

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 name and description imply it is for advanced math operations, distinguishing from basic_math, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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