add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('add two numbers together') but does not cover important traits like error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance characteristics, or output format. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple arithmetic tool, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 (basic addition with two parameters) and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the core action but lacks details on return values or behavioral nuances. Without annotations, it should ideally mention the output type or error cases to be fully comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'a' and 'b' clearly documented as 'First number' and 'Second number'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score 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?

The description 'Add two numbers together' clearly states the specific verb ('add') and resource ('two numbers'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cache', 'echo', and 'status' by focusing on arithmetic addition rather than data storage, repetition, or system status.

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. It does not mention any specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it compare to other tools for mathematical operations. Usage is implied solely by the tool's name and description.

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