csc

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 error handling (e.g., for sin(angle)=0), output format, or computational constraints. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on parameter details, behavioral traits, and output format, which are critical for a mathematical function tool. The conciseness comes at the expense of necessary 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%, and the description does not explain the 'angle' parameter's semantics (e.g., units in radians/degrees, valid range). It only mentions the mathematical relationship 1/sin, which partially relates to the parameter but lacks essential details. Baseline would be lower due to poor coverage.

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 '计算余割值（1/sin）' clearly states the specific mathematical operation (calculating cosecant) and the exact formula (1/sin), distinguishing it from sibling trigonometric functions like sin, cos, tan, cot, and sec. It provides precise verb+resource information.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sin or cot, nor any context about input requirements (e.g., angle units). The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.

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