sqrt5

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 describes the tool as returning a constant value (√5 ≈ 2.23607), which implies it is a read-only, deterministic operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it requires no inputs, has no rate limits, or other behavioral traits, leaving some gaps in 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 front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose ('Get √5 ≈ 2.23607'), adds mathematical context, and ends with domain/category tags. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient 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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, provides the approximate value, and gives mathematical context. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating that it requires no inputs or has no side effects, but for a constant-returning tool, the description is largely adequate.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since the tool likely takes no inputs. This aligns with the schema, and the description adds value by implying the tool's parameterless nature through its focus on returning a constant.

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 √5 ≈ 2.23607. Square root of 5, appears in golden ratio formula.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource (√5), and provides the approximate value and mathematical context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'sqrt', 'sqrt2', or 'sqrt3', which likely compute other square roots, so it misses full 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. It mentions the golden ratio formula as context, but does not specify scenarios where this constant is needed over other mathematical constants or tools. There are no explicit instructions on when to use it or when not to, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison.

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