tangent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that angles are degrees by default, which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not mention undefined values at 90°/270° or the behavior when degrees=false.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the operation and appends the one essential mode detail. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter math function, the description plus output schema is mostly sufficient. The main gaps are explicit radian-mode handling and mention of undefined tangent inputs, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly with the default setup.

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 should compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only repeats the degree-default notion and does not explicitly explain that degrees=false switches to radians or clarify the meaning of the required angle parameter.

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-resource pair, 'Calculate tangent', which unambiguously identifies the operation. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like sine and cosine, and the added unit default further clarifies intent.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to choose tangent over alternatives like sine or cosine, and no exclusions are stated. The intended usage is implied by the tool name and description, which is adequate but not richly instructional.

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