asinh

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the mathematical operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like domain restrictions (e.g., input range), precision, error handling, or output format. For a mathematical function with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple mathematical function with no wasted words.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address domain/range, precision, error conditions, or output format, which are important for proper usage in a computational context.

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%, but the description implies the parameter is a numeric value for the inverse hyperbolic sine calculation. However, it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema's type='number' already indicates. The baseline is 3 since the single parameter is straightforward, but no additional context is provided.

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 '计算反双曲正弦值' (calculates the inverse hyperbolic sine value) clearly states the mathematical operation and resource (value). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sinh' (hyperbolic sine) and 'asin' (arcsine), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'acosh' or 'atanh' which are similar inverse hyperbolic functions.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention mathematical context, domain restrictions, or comparison with related functions like 'acosh' or 'atanh' in the sibling list.

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