add

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 states the operation is 'pure arithmetic addition,' which implies it's a deterministic, side-effect-free computation without external dependencies like network calls or state changes. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance characteristics, or output format (since no output schema exists), leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 and front-loaded: 'Add two numbers together.' is the core purpose, followed by clarifying phrases ('Pure arithmetic addition operation.') and metadata tags. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 arithmetic), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on error cases, numerical precision, or example usage. For a core arithmetic tool, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide full context for robust agent interaction.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'two numbers' but doesn't specify parameter names ('a' and 'b') or provide additional context like acceptable ranges (e.g., integers vs. floats) or units. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definition, resulting in a baseline score due to the schema's lack of descriptive content.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add two numbers together. Pure arithmetic addition operation.' It specifies the verb ('Add'), resource ('two numbers'), and scope ('Pure arithmetic addition operation'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_in_base' or 'element_wise_add', which are related but distinct 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 through the phrase 'Pure arithmetic addition operation' and domain/category tags ('Domain: arithmetic, Category: core'), suggesting it's for basic numeric addition. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_in_base' (for addition in different bases) or 'sum' (for summing multiple numbers), leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and category alone.

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