cbrt2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a specific constant value (∛2 ≈ 1.25992) with a geometric interpretation, which gives basic behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a computed or cached value, precision characteristics, or any limitations—leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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: it immediately states the core value and purpose in the first phrase. The parenthetical domain/category adds minimal but potentially useful metadata without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a constant-returning tool. It provides the exact value and a geometric interpretation. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning precision or computational characteristics to be fully complete for 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?

The tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed or 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 tool's purpose: 'Get ∛2 ≈ 1.25992. Cube root of 2, edge length of cube with volume 2.' It provides a specific mathematical operation (cube root of 2) with a geometric interpretation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'cbrt3' or 'sqrt2', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. While it mentions 'Domain: arithmetic, Category: general', this is too vague to help an agent choose between this and similar mathematical constant tools like 'sqrt2', 'cbrt3', or 'e' in the sibling list.

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