sqrt

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 basic operation without disclosing behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for negative inputs), performance characteristics, or output format. For a mathematical tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 phrase '计算平方根', which is appropriately sized and front-loaded. It wastes no words, but could be slightly more informative. It earns its place by stating the core function efficiently, though it lacks additional context that might be useful.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., numeric result or error), handle edge cases, or provide context for use among siblings. For a basic mathematical function, more detail on behavior and output would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'number' documented as '要计算平方根的数字' (the number to calculate the square root of). The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '计算平方根' (calculates square root) states the basic function but is vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify what type of numbers it handles (e.g., only non-negative) or how it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calculate' or 'logarithm'. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., input must be non-negative), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'calculate' (which might handle general operations) or 'factorial'. Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.

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