sec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the mathematical operation but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as input validation (e.g., handling of invalid angles), error conditions (e.g., division by zero when cos(angle)=0), or output format (e.g., numerical result). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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) and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted text, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it may lack necessary details.

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 undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic function but misses critical context like error handling, mathematical domain, and result format, which are essential for safe and correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any parameter details beyond the schema. It implies 'angle' is the input but doesn't specify units (degrees/radians) or constraints. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is moderate as the parameter is simple, but no extra semantics are 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 clearly states the mathematical function (计算正割值) and provides the formula (1/cos), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cos' by indicating it's the reciprocal, though it doesn't explicitly compare to other trigonometric tools like 'csc'.

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 'cos' or 'csc', or about mathematical constraints (e.g., angle units, domain restrictions where cos(angle) ≠ 0). The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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