subtract

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 mentions the operation but doesn't describe traits like error handling (e.g., for non-integer inputs), performance characteristics, or side effects. For a mathematical tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 sentence that is appropriately sized but not optimally structured. It's front-loaded with the core action but includes the awkward phrase 'together', which doesn't add value. While concise, it could be more precise (e.g., 'Subtracts one integer from another').

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 (basic arithmetic), two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which likely handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core operation but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, making this adequate but not comprehensive.

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 minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that parameters 'a' and 'b' are 'two integer numbers', providing basic type context not in the schema (which lists them as 'number'). However, it doesn't explain parameter roles (e.g., minuend and subtrahend) or constraints. With 0 parameters documented in the schema, the baseline is 4, as the description compensates slightly.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'subtract two integer numbers together', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb (subtract) and resource (two integer numbers), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add' or 'divide' beyond the operation name. The phrase 'together' is slightly awkward for subtraction but doesn't obscure the basic intent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add', 'divide', 'multiply', or 'power'. The description simply states what it does without indicating appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools. This leaves the agent without explicit usage direction.

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