add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It states a pure mathematical operation with no side effects, which is adequate. However, it does not mention the return type or any potential edge cases.

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 extremely concise (3 words) and front-loaded. Every word is meaningful, and no extraneous information is present. For a simple tool, this is optimal.

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 simplicity (add two integers) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema presumably handles that. Slightly more context about overflow or result type could elevate it to 5.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It implies that 'a' and 'b' are the numbers to add, but does not elaborate on constraints, formats, or usage conventions.

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 'Add two numbers' clearly identifies the verb (add) and the resource (two numbers). It distinguishes the tool from siblings such as create_text_file and log_entry, which perform entirely different operations.

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 adding two numbers, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks differentiation advice.

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