digital_root

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 what the tool calculates without disclosing behavioral traits like error handling for negative inputs, performance characteristics, or output format. For a computational tool with zero 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently define the operation and categorize it. Every element earns its place, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by leading with the core calculation. No wasted words or redundancy are present.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for a 2-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or parameter details. For a computational tool in a server with many mathematical siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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. It mentions 'digital root' and 'base' implicitly through the mathematical concept, but doesn't explicitly explain the 'n' parameter (the input number) or 'base' parameter's role. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferable from the tool name and schema structure.

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 with a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('digital root'), including the mathematical definition ('single digit obtained by repeatedly summing digits'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying its unique arithmetic domain and digital operations category, unlike tools like 'digit_sum' or 'digital_sum_sequence'.

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 domain and category but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'digital_sum_sequence' or 'digit_sum' that might handle similar operations. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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