add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core function (addition) and output (result), but lacks details on error handling, input constraints (e.g., number types, overflow), or performance characteristics. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Add two numbers') and avoids any unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (simple arithmetic), no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, it lacks details on return format, error cases, or behavioral nuances that would be helpful for full contextual understanding, making it minimally viable but incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage nuances), so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 specific action ('Add two numbers') and the outcome ('return the result'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It uses precise verbs and specifies the resource (numbers), leaving 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 for numerical addition, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other mathematical operations). Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of comparative guidance is less critical, but it still offers only basic context without exclusions or prerequisites.

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