sinh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates a value but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., numeric result), error handling (e.g., for invalid inputs), or computational characteristics (e.g., precision, domain restrictions). For a mathematical function with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient phrase ('计算双曲正弦值') that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple mathematical function and front-loaded with the core action.

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 the tool's mathematical nature, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, input constraints, or how it fits within the broader set of mathematical tools. For a function with one parameter, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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, with one parameter 'value' of type 'number'. The description adds no information about what 'value' represents (e.g., input angle in radians, real number), acceptable ranges, or units. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning ambiguous.

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 '计算双曲正弦值' (calculates hyperbolic sine value) clearly states the verb ('计算' - calculate) and resource ('双曲正弦值' - hyperbolic sine value). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sin' (sine) and 'cosh' (hyperbolic cosine) by specifying the hyperbolic sine function. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'asinh' (inverse hyperbolic sine), which is a minor gap.

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 sine is needed over regular sine ('sin') or other hyperbolic functions like 'cosh' or 'tanh', nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for usage. The agent must infer usage from the function name alone.

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