tan

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 input must be in radians, which is useful context, but doesn't mention other behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for undefined values like π/2), output format, or performance considerations. For a mathematical function tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and front-loaded: '计算角度的正切值（输入为弧度）' is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function and key input constraint. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy 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 the tool's low complexity (a simple mathematical function), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameters, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and input unit, but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and output semantics. For such a straightforward tool, this might be minimally adequate, but improvements could enhance agent understanding.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds value by specifying that the parameter 'angle' must be in radians, which clarifies the unit requirement. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's name, range, or any constraints beyond the unit, leaving some ambiguity. Given the low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 tool's purpose: '计算角度的正切值（输入为弧度）' translates to 'Calculate the tangent of an angle (input in radians)'. This specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('tangent of an angle'), and input constraint ('radians'), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling trigonometric functions like 'sin' or 'cos', which have similar patterns but compute different functions.

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 mentions the input must be in radians, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools like 'tanh' (hyperbolic tangent) or 'atan' (inverse tangent). Without such context, an agent might struggle to select this tool appropriately in complex scenarios.

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