sumar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about return format (number vs string), error handling for missing/non-numeric inputs, or precision behavior. The operation is trivially simple, which limits the practical risk, but the description itself adds no 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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so the only cost is omitted information, not wasted words.

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-number arithmetic utility with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action, which is the minimum needed to call it. It stops short of stating the return value or input constraints, which would complete the picture 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 0% and the parameter names (a, b) are uninformative on their own, but the phrase "suma dos numeros" implies both parameters are the addends, giving partial semantic grounding. It does not clarify ordering, accepted numeric range, or whether either operand is optional, so it only marginally compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

"Suma dos numeros" states a specific verb (sum) and the operands involved, which is enough to distinguish it from the unrelated siblings (info_sistema, hora_actual, eco). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but none of them are arithmetic so no confusion arises.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus anything else, no note on operand types (integers, floats, negatives) and no mention of what it returns. Usage is inferable only from the one-line purpose statement.

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