atanh

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully adds the critical constraint that '输入值必须在-1到1之间' (input value must be between -1 and 1), which is essential behavioral information not in the schema. However, it doesn't describe error handling for invalid inputs or the mathematical precision/format of the output.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states the operation and the critical constraint. Every word earns its place with zero waste. The most important information (the mathematical function) comes first, followed by the constraint.

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 single-parameter mathematical function with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential operation and input constraint. However, it doesn't describe the output format (e.g., returns a number, precision, units) or error behavior for invalid inputs, leaving some gaps in 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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains that the single parameter is the input value for the mathematical function and specifies the valid range (-1 to 1). This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain the data type or units.

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 specific mathematical function ('计算反双曲正切值' - compute inverse hyperbolic tangent) and identifies the single input parameter ('输入值' - input value). It distinguishes from siblings like tanh (hyperbolic tangent) and atan (arc tangent) by specifying the inverse hyperbolic operation.

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 clear context about when to use this tool by specifying the mathematical operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related operations (e.g., using tanh for forward hyperbolic tangent or atan for arc tangent).

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