rta_sqrt_time

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

The description explains the analysis and output but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the calculation itself (e.g., no mention of assumptions, units consistency, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only/safe). With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially addresses it.

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 concise: a brief sentence explaining the technique, a short equation description, and a clean Args list. The key information is front-loaded. The additional explanation of the linear flow relationship is useful but not excessive.

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?

For a specialized analysis tool, the description covers the main purpose, input parameters with units, and the output (sqrt(k)*xf). With an output schema present (assumed descriptive), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it could mention data assumptions (e.g., arrays must be same length) or error conditions.

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 zero description coverage, but the description's Args section adds units (bbl/d, days, psi) and context (production rates, flowing pressures). This adds meaningful information beyond the schema, helping the agent understand parameter meaning and expected format.

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 performs 'square root of time analysis for linear flow identification' and explains the physical basis and output (slope to determine sqrt(k)*xf). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling RTA tools like rta_blasingame or rta_agarwal_gardner.

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 for linear flow analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other RTA methods). No guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use is provided.

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