elladd

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states the basic operation. It does not disclose behavior on invalid inputs, identity point, or curve type requirements, making it insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly expanded to include essential behavioral details without losing conciseness.

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 mathematical complexity of elliptic curve addition, the description lacks crucial details such as input format, output type (point or identity), and error conditions. The absence of output schema further reduces completeness for an AI agent.

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%, but the parameter descriptions are vague: 'Elliptic curve (or point).' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify expected format (e.g., vector or list) or context.

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 points on an elliptic curve' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (points on an elliptic curve), distinguishing it from siblings like ellmul (multiplication) and elllog (logarithm). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other elliptic curve operations.

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 versus alternatives such as ellmul or elladd for scalar multiplication. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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