InferMap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation and return value, making the pure-function behavior clear. There are no side effects or edge cases mentioned, but for a simple arithmetic tool this is sufficient.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part of the description earns its place.

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 two-parameter numeric addition tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description's 'two numbers' directly maps to the a and b parameters. Since addition is commutative, parameter order is irrelevant, so the description adequately compensates for missing schema documentation.

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 'Adds two numbers and returns the sum' uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like echo and server_time. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 (when you need to add two numbers) but provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings. No exclusionary or comparative context is given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly states the primary behavior—returning the provided text to the caller—and implies a pure, side-effect-free operation. For a trivial echo tool, this is sufficient even without mentioning permissions or side effects.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence with no filler or redundant information. The behavior is front-loaded and the entire description earns its place.

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 one-parameter, side-effect-free echo tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and to whom, leaving minimal ambiguity for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%: the 'text' parameter is already documented as 'Text to echo back'. The tool description essentially restates this, adding no new semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Echoes'), a clear resource ('the provided text'), and the recipient ('to the caller'). This makes its function immediately obvious and distinguishable from the sibling tools add and server_time.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's simple purpose: an agent would use it when it needs to return the same text to the caller. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool or contrast it with the sibling tools, though the alternatives are unrelated in function.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adequately discloses the dynamic nature of the result (current time), the format (ISO 8601), and the timezone (UTC). No hidden mutation or side effect is implied or omitted for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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?

A single tightly worded sentence conveys the operation, resource, format, and timezone with no wasted words. All essential information is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool of minimal complexity, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what is returned and in what format/timezone. Nothing important is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter complexity for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately focuses on the return value rather than adding meaningless parameter details.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns'), a precise resource ('current server time'), and specifies format and timezone ('ISO 8601, UTC'). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like add and echo, whose purposes are unrelated.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it: whenever the current server time is needed. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly unrelated and there is no ambiguity about selecting this tool.

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