sum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It is a pure, side-effect-free arithmetic operation, so there is little destructive behavior to disclose, but the description says nothing about edge cases (empty arrays, overflow, precision) or the return shape. Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded and the alternative routing follows immediately.

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 single-parameter arithmetic tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to select and invoke it. Minor gap: no mention of return value behavior, though that is largely self-evident for a sum.

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 100% and there is only one parameter ('numbers'), which the schema already documents as an array of numbers with minItems 1. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('adds') and resource ('numbers'), and clarifies the scope is 'any number of numbers'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling add (binary) and batch_calc (multi-op) via an explicit routing sentence.

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?

Explicitly names batch_calc as the alternative when several operations or chained steps are needed. It gives clear context for the alternative but does not state when this tool should be avoided in any other sense.

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