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. 'Add two numbers' implies a simple computation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like error handling, performance, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and front-loaded with the core action ('Add two numbers'), using only three words with zero waste. Every sentence (though it's a single phrase) earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It states what the tool does but misses behavioral and usage context, making it adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to rely on.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It implies that parameters 'a' and 'b' are numbers to be added, but doesn't specify details like integer types or constraints. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate, but it provides basic context, aligning with the baseline for partial compensation.

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 verb ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (fetch_markdown, search_docs), which are unrelated to arithmetic operations, so it doesn't need sibling differentiation but could be more specific about what type of numbers or context.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage, such as when arithmetic operations are needed versus other tools. This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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