add_numbers

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

There are no annotations to carry the safety profile, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the operation, and a pure addition has no obvious destructive or persistent side effects, but it does not explicitly mention that the result is returned or how errors are handled.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the meaning without redundancy.

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?

For a simple two-number addition tool with required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that it returns the sum, but the operation is straightforward enough for an agent to infer the expected behavior.

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 description must compensate. 'Add two numbers together' clarifies that both a and b are operands in the same addition, which adds meaning over bare names and types. It does not discuss edge cases like type coercion or numeric bounds, but these are minor for simple addition.

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 uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('two numbers'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is also clearly distinct from the only sibling, get_system_info, since arithmetic and system information share no overlap.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when a sum of two numbers is needed. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or any alternative, though the operation is elementary enough that confusion is unlikely.

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