cot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the mathematical operation without disclosing behavioral traits like input constraints (e.g., angle units, domain restrictions for undefined values like multiples of π), error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential mathematical edge cases.

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 (one sentence in Chinese) and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple but potentially tricky mathematical function (cotangent has undefined points), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context like angle units, handling of invalid inputs, and output details, which are necessary for reliable tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool has only one parameter ('angle'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond implying it's an angle for cotangent calculation. It doesn't specify units (degrees/radians) or valid ranges, so it partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 mathematical function ('计算余切值' meaning 'calculate cotangent value') and provides the formula (1/tan), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'tan' or other trigonometric functions, which would require a 5.

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 like 'tan' or 'csc', nor does it mention any mathematical context or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without usage instructions.

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