add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but this is a pure arithmetic operation whose behavior ('add two numbers together') is fully evident. It discloses nothing about output type, rounding, or numeric precision, which is a minor gap for a calculator 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the operation is trivial. The description is nearly sufficient for such a simple tool; the only missing piece is differentiation from the 'sum' sibling.

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%, with parameters named only 'a' and 'b'. The description says 'two numbers', which confirms operand type but adds no mapping to 'a'/'b' or information about order (irrelevant for addition, but not stated) or accepted numeric ranges.

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 (add) and its operands (two numbers), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as sum or mean, which also aggregate numbers, but the operation is clear enough that no agent would confuse 'add' with 'mod' or 'factorial'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus 'sum' (which likely adds a list) or how it differs from adding more than two values. The description gives no context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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