cbrt3

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 implies a read-only, deterministic operation (returning a constant value) and mentions the domain/category, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, precision, or performance characteristics. For a zero-parameter tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the core functionality and value, another providing domain/category context. Every phrase adds value (mathematical definition, approximate result, geometric interpretation, classification). It could be slightly more front-loaded by leading with 'Cube root of 3' instead of 'Get ∛3,' but overall it's concise and well-organized.

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 (zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and provides context (domain/category). However, for full completeness, it could mention that this is a constant-returning function with no inputs, and perhaps note its relationship to sibling tools like cbrt2. The absence of output schema isn't critical here since the return value is explicitly stated.

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 waste space on parameter explanations. A baseline of 4 is justified since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 ∛3 ≈ 1.44225. Cube root of 3, edge length of cube with volume 3.' It specifies the exact mathematical operation (cube root of 3), provides the approximate value, and gives a geometric interpretation. This distinguishes it from siblings like cbrt2 (cube root of 2) and sqrt3 (square root of 3).

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 other mathematical tools like cbrt2, sqrt3, or general-purpose calculators. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations are given.

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