asin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the output is in radians, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: valid input range (typically -1 to 1 for arcsine), error handling for invalid inputs, precision limitations, or whether it's a pure mathematical function. The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational context.

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 - a single Chinese phrase that directly states the operation and output format. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently front-loaded with the core information.

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 mathematical function with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about input domain restrictions, error conditions, precision, and doesn't explain the relationship to sibling trigonometric functions. The minimal description doesn't provide enough context for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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%, and the description provides no information about the single parameter 'value'. It doesn't explain what 'value' represents (e.g., sine value between -1 and 1), units, or constraints. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 the tool's purpose: '计算反正弦值（返回弧度）' translates to 'calculate arcsine (returns radians)'. This specifies both the mathematical operation (arcsine) and the output unit (radians). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'asin' vs 'asinh' or 'sin' beyond the basic function name.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling mathematical functions (e.g., 'asin', 'asinh', 'sin', 'acos'), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, input domain restrictions, or comparisons to related tools.

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