square_root

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical behavior of raising an error for negative inputs. Given the tool's simplicity, this covers the most important behavioral aspect, though it could mention the return type or precision.

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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes a critical constraint efficiently.

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 required parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the purpose and a key error case. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly note that the result is a number.

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 parameter 'n' is a number with no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds context by mentioning it is a number and that negative values cause errors, but does not elaborate further. For a single numeric parameter, this is minimally adequate.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the square root of a number, using a specific verb ('return') and resource ('square root'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'power', 'divide', etc., as it uniquely computes the square root.

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 indicates when to use the tool (for square root computation) and when not (negative numbers cause an error). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives among siblings, the sibling tools have distinct purposes, making the usage context sufficiently clear.

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