sqrt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions calculation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for negative inputs), precision, or return format. For a mathematical function with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded for a simple mathematical function.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., handling of edge cases), parameter semantics, and usage context, which are necessary for an AI agent to invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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 description implies a single parameter for the number, but with 0% schema description coverage and no additional details in the description (e.g., constraints like non-negative values), it adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema's type indicates. The baseline is 3 since the schema provides basic structure, but the description doesn't 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 '计算数字的平方根' (calculates the square root of a number) clearly states the verb ('计算' - calculate) and resource ('平方根' - square root). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cbrt' (cube root) and 'nthRoot' (n-th root) by specifying square root, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cbrt' or 'nthRoot' is provided. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or any prerequisites (e.g., input must be non-negative for real results).

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