idealadd

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

With no annotations, the description should cover behavioral traits. 'Add two ideals' implies a mathematical operation, but it lacks details on state changes, side effects, or error conditions. It is minimally adequate for a simple computation.

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 one sentence. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it efficient for an agent.

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 and full schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but fails to mention return values or expected input formats. It is adequate for a basic arithmetic operation but could be more informative.

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 like 'Number field structure', 'First ideal', 'Second ideal'. These add minimal value beyond the parameter names. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the descriptions do not enhance understanding significantly.

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 states the action (add) and the resource (two ideals in a number field). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like idealfactor, idealmul, and idealpow.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the basic functionality, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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