sine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that angles are degrees by default, which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema. It does not explicitly explain the degrees=false case, but 'by default' reasonably implies radians as the alternative mode.

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: one short sentence that front-loads the core operation and includes the most important unit behavior. Every word adds value.

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 low complexity of this tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what the tool computes and the unit convention. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the degree/radian toggle, but this is implied by 'degrees by default' and the schema's boolean flag.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by clarifying that the angle is in degrees by default, which gives meaning to the angle parameter. However, it does not explicitly describe the degrees boolean's semantics beyond the default, leaving the false case to inference.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate sine'. It also clarifies that angles are degrees by default, which adds precision beyond the tool name alone. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cosine and tangent.

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 intended use is implied by 'Calculate sine', but the description does not explicitly state when to choose sine over the sibling trigonometric functions, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. An agent can infer the usage, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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