cbrt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't mention whether the tool accepts negative inputs (cube roots of negative numbers are real), what happens with non-numeric inputs, error handling, precision, or return format. The single sentence only states the mathematical operation without any implementation details.

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 Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. For a simple mathematical function, this level of brevity is appropriate and well-structured.

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 a mathematical function with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value format, error conditions, numerical precision, or edge cases. While cube root is mathematically straightforward, the description provides insufficient context for reliable tool invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'a', and the tool description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what 'a' represents, its valid range, or units. While this is a simple mathematical function, the description fails to add any semantic value beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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 as '计算数字的立方根' (calculate the cube root of a number), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'sqrt' (square root) and 'nthRoot' (general nth root) by focusing specifically on cube roots. However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'nthRoot' with n=3, which would make it a perfect 5.

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. There's no mention of when to choose 'cbrt' over 'nthRoot' with n=3, or whether it handles negative numbers differently than 'power' with exponent 1/3. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling context alone.

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