nthRoot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the calculation action without mentioning error handling (e.g., for negative numbers with even roots), performance, or output format. This is inadequate for a mathematical operation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a mathematical root calculation (which can involve edge cases like negative inputs), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and output, making it insufficient 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 description coverage is 0%, with two required parameters ('a' and 'n') undocumented in both the schema and description. The description implies parameters for the number and root degree but doesn't specify which is which or add any semantic details beyond the basic mathematical concept, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 '计算数字的n次方根' (calculates the nth root of a number) states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('计算') and resource ('数字的n次方根'), but it doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sqrt' (square root) or 'cbrt' (cube root). The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 like 'sqrt' or 'cbrt', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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