rta_sqrt_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the analysis yields a slope for determining sqrt(k)*xf but does not describe the output format, error conditions (e.g., mismatched array lengths), or assumptions (e.g., linear flow regime validity).

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 with a clear purpose sentence followed by a brief theoretical explanation and parameter list. It is well-structured and front-loads key information without excessive verbosity.

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 tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations, the description covers the analysis theory and parameter units but omits output description (though output schema exists) and does not address data quality or edge cases.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with units (bbl/d, days, psi), providing meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it does not explain constraints like array length consistency or valid ranges.

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 context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling RTA tools like rta_agarwal_gardner or rta_blasingame, which could cause confusion.

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 use during fracture-dominated linear flow by explaining the theory, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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