tanh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description only states what the tool calculates without any behavioral information: no mention of input constraints (e.g., domain restrictions), output format, precision, error handling, or mathematical properties. This is inadequate for a computational tool.

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 Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple mathematical function.

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?

For a mathematical function with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meaning, output format, or usage context. While the tool is conceptually simple, the description leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain what 'value' represents (input angle/argument), units (radians/degrees), valid ranges, or special cases. With one undocumented parameter, this is insufficient.

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 '计算双曲正切值' (calculates hyperbolic tangent value) clearly states the verb (calculate) and resource (hyperbolic tangent value). It distinguishes from siblings like 'tan' (tangent) and 'sinh' (hyperbolic sine) by specifying the hyperbolic tangent function. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the mathematical function name 'tanh' which would make it fully specific.

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 mathematical contexts, comparison with regular tangent ('tan'), or when hyperbolic functions are appropriate. With many sibling mathematical tools, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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