Get Sum Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as error handling or edge cases, but for a pure numeric sum, there is little else to disclose. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that conveys the entire purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's trivial complexity.

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 low complexity, full schema coverage, and informative annotations, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It states the return behavior ('Returns the sum'), and no output schema is necessary because the result type is implicitly a number.

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 already describes both parameters ('a' as 'First number' and 'b' as 'Second number') with 100% coverage. The description only refers to 'two numbers' without adding new meaning about formats, constraints, or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the sum of two numbers'), clearly indicating the tool's arithmetic function. It distinguishes itself from sibling get-* tools by being the only one that computes a numeric sum, so there is no ambiguity.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives. However, the purpose is so self-evident that the usage context is implied: use it whenever the sum of two numbers is needed. No exclusions or alternative tools are provided, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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