add

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

The description is a pure function with no side effects, and the sole behavior 'Add two numbers' is fully disclosed. With no annotations to contradict, the description provides complete behavioral transparency for this simple 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 sentence with no unnecessary words; it is front-loaded and earns its place. It communicates everything needed in the most compact form possible.

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 simple nature and the presence of an output schema (per context signal), the description sufficiently covers the function. There are no complex behaviors, side effects, or conditional logic to document.

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%, yet the description only generically mentions 'two numbers' without explaining the meaning or constraints of parameters a and b. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics under-specified.

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 uses the specific verb 'Add' and identifies the resource as 'two numbers', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling arithmetic tools subtract, multiply, and divide. It is unambiguous and precisely states the tool's function.

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 is concise but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives; however, the operation is self-evident for the sibling context. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, but the clear context of adding numbers implicitly covers the main use case.

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