add_in_base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does, without any information on error handling (e.g., invalid base or number formats), output format, performance, or side effects. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 very concise—a single sentence followed by domain/category tags. It is front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the domain/category tags are redundant with context and could be considered minor waste, but they do not significantly detract from clarity.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or output format. For a tool performing arithmetic in arbitrary bases, more context is needed to use it correctly.

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, and the description does not explain the parameters at all. It mentions 'two numbers' and 'a specified base' but does not clarify that 'num1' and 'num2' are strings (likely representing numbers in the given base) or what valid ranges or formats are for 'base'. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 in a specified base.' It specifies the verb ('Add'), resources ('two numbers'), and a key constraint ('in a specified base'), which distinguishes it from generic addition tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'add' (which likely adds numbers in base 10 by default), leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('number_systems'), but this is too vague to inform usage decisions. There is no mention of when to choose this over the sibling 'add' tool or other base-related tools like 'base_conversion'.

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