tangent

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, read-only behavior. The description adds that the angle is in degrees by default and can be switched to radians, which is useful but does not disclose error handling or output format.

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 very short but contains the redundant 'Tangent.' fragment. It could be more efficiently written as a single sentence, e.g., 'Computes the tangent of an angle in degrees by default, or radians if unit is specified.'

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?

For a simple math function, the description covers input semantics but omits the return value (tangent of the angle). With no output schema, mentioning the return type would improve completeness.

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 schema lacks parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explains that 'angle' is numeric and defaults to degrees, and 'unit' accepts 'radians'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states 'Tangent' which essentially restates the tool name, but it immediately explains the input unit behavior. This makes the purpose clear despite the tautological first sentence.

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 siblings like sine or cosine. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for alternative trigonometric functions.

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