add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add two numbers' implies a simple computation but reveals nothing about error handling, performance characteristics, side effects, or response format. It lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 with just three words, front-loaded with the core action. There is zero wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat adequate. However, with no annotations and poor parameter semantics, it lacks completeness for reliable agent use, scoring at the minimum viable level.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. 'Add two numbers' only vaguely references parameters without naming them or explaining their roles (e.g., which is first operand, constraints). It adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, since there are no sibling tools to distinguish from, it cannot achieve a perfect score of 5 for sibling differentiation.

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, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without any usage instructions, leaving the agent with no operational guidance.

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