add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Add two numbers' fully specifies the core behavior for a pure, side-effect-free arithmetic operation. It does not describe edge cases or return format, but those are simple and partially covered by the presence of an output schema.

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?

Four words with zero filler; the core action and object are front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter pure arithmetic tool with a required schema and an output schema, the description plus schema covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly. No missing conditions, side effects, or edge-case warnings are needed.

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. It identifies a and b as the two numbers being added, which is sufficient semantic grounding for trivial numeric parameters. It could name each parameter individually, but the operation makes their roles self-evident.

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 ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling arithmetic operations such as subtract, multiply, and divide. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool computes.

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 discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, for a primitive arithmetic operation, the intended use is implied by the operation itself; an agent needing the sum of two numbers would select this tool. There are no prerequisites or exclusions to state.

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