root

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about edge cases (e.g., even roots of negative numbers), whether n must be a positive integer, or the default n=2 behavior — all things an agent would want to know before invoking a root function.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the core operation with no filler. The parenthetical Chinese gloss (开方) is mildly redundant but harmless.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a simple two-parameter math tool the description is minimally adequate, but it leaves domain/error behavior unstated, which is the main thing missing given the total absence of annotations.

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 implicitly defines both parameters (the number and the root degree n via 'nth root'), which is better than nothing, but it does not mention the default n=2, the integer constraint on n, or the sign domain.

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 states a specific verb (calculate) and resource (nth root of a number), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like power (the inverse operation) or divide, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use root instead of power, divide, or any other arithmetic sibling. For a pure math helper in a large arithmetic family, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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