square_root

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 adds the meaningful behavioral constraint that the input must be non-negative, which is important. However, it does not disclose what happens for negative inputs (e.g., error, NaN) or how the result is returned.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by the key constraint.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values are likely covered there. The description captures the core input constraint. The only gap is explicit behavior for negative inputs, but that is partially implied by 'non-negative'.

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 provides 0% description coverage for the 'number' parameter, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'non-negative number' adds a crucial semantic constraint that is not present in the schema. It doesn't explicitly tie the constraint to the parameter name, but the intent is clear.

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 uses the specific verb 'calculate' and names the exact resource 'square root', with the key domain constraint 'non-negative number'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nth_root and power.

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 when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. An agent would know to use it when a square root is needed, but there is no guidance on choosing it over nth_root or other operations.

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