add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Add two numbers together,' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as result type, precision, overflow handling, or error behavior. For a simple arithmetic tool, this may be passable, but it lacks depth.

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, coherent sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Front-loading is not an issue due to its brevity.

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 (2 numbers, arithmetic operation), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention the return value (output schema exists but is not described), nor does it address edge cases, making it insufficient for complex usage.

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%, meaning parameters have no descriptions. The description adds no semantic context beyond the schema (that a and b are numbers). It does not explain what the numbers represent, range constraints, or units, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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 object (two numbers), and it distinguishes from sibling arithmetic tools like subtract, multiply, etc. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when addition is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or restrictions. The sibling tools differentiate by operation, but the description does not elaborate.

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