add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Add') but gives no behavioral details such as error handling, computational limits, or output format. The description is minimal and lacks transparency about how the tool behaves beyond the basic operation.

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 a single sentence ('Add two numbers.') that directly states the purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, earning full marks for brevity and 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's low complexity (simple arithmetic), two parameters, and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines the result), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on error cases or behavioral traits, making it incomplete for robust agent use.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description 'Add two numbers' implies parameters 'a' and 'b' are numbers to be added, adding basic semantics beyond the schema's type definitions. However, it doesn't specify constraints like integer vs. float or handling of large numbers, leaving gaps.

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'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'multiply' by specifying addition, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other mathematical operations beyond the name.

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 like 'multiply' or non-mathematical siblings. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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