cosh

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 but only states the mathematical operation. It doesn't describe error handling (e.g., for invalid inputs), performance characteristics, domain/range limitations, or output format. For a mathematical function tool with zero 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 extremely concise with just one phrase ('计算双曲余弦值'), which is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words. For a simple mathematical function, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.

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. While the purpose is clear, it lacks parameter details, behavioral context, and usage guidance that would help an agent invoke it correctly in various mathematical contexts.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single parameter 'value'. It doesn't explain what 'value' represents (e.g., input number in radians or degrees), valid ranges, or special cases. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 '计算双曲余弦值' (calculates hyperbolic cosine value) clearly states the verb ('计算' - calculate) and resource ('双曲余弦值' - hyperbolic cosine). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cos' (cosine) and 'sinh' (hyperbolic sine) by specifying the hyperbolic cosine function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'acosh' (inverse hyperbolic cosine).

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. It doesn't mention when hyperbolic cosine calculations are appropriate compared to regular cosine ('cos') or other hyperbolic functions ('sinh', 'tanh'), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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