root_find_newton

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the method is 'fast but requires derivative', which gives some insight into performance and prerequisites. However, it doesn't describe convergence behavior, error handling, output format, or what happens when max_iter is reached. For a numerical method tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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—a single sentence with parenthetical clarifications. It front-loads the core purpose ('Find root of a function using Newton's method') and efficiently adds key characteristics and domain context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (numerical root-finding with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., root approximation, iterations, convergence status), doesn't detail parameter semantics, and omits behavioral aspects like convergence criteria or error conditions. For a tool in this context, more completeness is needed.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'requires derivative', which hints at the 'fprime' parameter, but doesn't explain any parameters explicitly. It doesn't clarify what 'func' and 'fprime' should contain (e.g., mathematical expressions), what 'x0' represents (initial guess), or the roles of 'tol' and 'max_iter'. This leaves most parameters undocumented.

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: 'Find root of a function using Newton's method'. It specifies the method (Newton's), mentions key characteristics (fast but requires derivative), and provides domain/category context (calculus, general). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling root-finding tools like 'root_find_bisection' and 'root_find_secant', which is why it doesn't achieve 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 implies usage context by noting Newton's method is 'fast but requires derivative', suggesting it's suitable when derivatives are available and speed is prioritized. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bisection or secant methods, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations beyond the derivative requirement.

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