sqrt3

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. It states the tool returns a constant value (√3 ≈ 1.73205), which implies it's a read-only, deterministic operation with no side effects. However, it doesn't specify the return format (e.g., numeric vs. string), precision, or any error conditions. For a zero-parameter tool, this is minimal but acceptable, though more detail would improve transparency.

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 highly concise and well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose ('Get √3 ≈ 1.73205'), adds relevant context ('Square root of 3, appears in equilateral triangles'), and includes domain/category tags efficiently. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it easy for an AI agent 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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, provides the constant value, and offers contextual usage hints. However, it could be more thorough by explicitly stating the return type or any limitations, but for a basic constant-fetching tool, this is sufficient to guide an agent effectively.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the output. It adds value by providing the approximate value (1.73205) and context about equilateral triangles, which goes beyond what the schema alone would indicate. A baseline of 4 is justified since no parameters exist to document.

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: 'Get √3 ≈ 1.73205. Square root of 3, appears in equilateral triangles.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource (√3), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'sqrt2' and 'sqrt5' by focusing on the square root of 3. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other mathematical constant tools like 'pi' or 'e' beyond its domain/category mention.

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 through context: 'appears in equilateral triangles' suggests applications in geometry, and the domain/category tags ('arithmetic, general') provide broad context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sqrt' (for general square roots) or other constant tools, and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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