No, the conclusion is not right. The problem is here to use a statement which is normally true and apply it to a situation where it's not applicable/true.
The statement that $\lim_{x\to a}f(x) = L$ if and only if $\lim_{x\to a^{-}} f(x) =\lim_{x\to a^{+}} f(x) =L$ is only true under certain circumstances. It requires $f$ to be defined sufficiently close to $a$ at both sides, more precisely it means that for every $\delta>0$, $f$ must be defined for some $a-\delta<x<a$ and $a<x<a+\delta$.
This means that the statement is not valid for $f(x)=\sqrt x$ and $a=0$ since $f(x)$ is not defined for any $x<0$, it means for any given $\delta >0$ there is no $-\delta<x<0$ such that $f(x)$ is defined.
The statement can be altered to handle other cases. If for example $f(x)$ is never defined for $x<a$ and for each $\delta>0$ there exists an $x$ with $a<x<a+\delta$ for which $f(x)$ is defined then $\lim_{x\to a} f(x)=L$ if and only if $\lim_{x\to a^+}f(x)=L$