my-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function of adding numbers without addressing potential behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance characteristics, or any limitations (e.g., precision issues with floating-point numbers). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the core 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 highly concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by separate sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 addition), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or limitations, which could be relevant even for a simple tool.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explicitly defines parameters 'a' and 'b' as 'the first number to add' and 'the second number to add', clarifying their roles. However, it doesn't elaborate on constraints like valid ranges or types beyond 'number', which the schema already covers with 'anyOf' for number/integer.

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 together') and identifies the resource (two numbers). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'echo' or 'sampleLLM' by focusing exclusively on mathematical addition. The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need to sum or add two numbers'), which is clear and helpful. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, such as whether other tools might handle more complex mathematical operations or different data types.

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