Get Sum Tool

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) but adds no additional behavioral details beyond the explicit purpose. It simply restates what the tool does without explaining side effects, limits, or error conditions.

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 a single sentence that is clear and concise. It contains no unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it optimal for quick parsing.

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 simplicity, the annotations and schema are sufficient. The description could mention that the return value is a number, but the sum of two numbers is self-explanatory. No output schema exists, but this is acceptable for a trivial operation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters 'a' and 'b'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely states the operation outcome. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as returning the sum of two numbers. The verb 'returns' and resource 'sum' are specific, and no sibling tool has a similar function, so it distinguishes well.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the sibling tools are unrelated (e.g., echo, get-env), the description does not explicitly state usage context or exclusions, relying on implicit understanding.

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