add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the operation (addition) and return value (the sum). For a pure, stateless arithmetic operation, there is minimal risk or side-effect behavior to disclose further. The description covers the essential behavioral contract adequately.

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?

Two short, informative sentences with zero waste. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

This is a simple tool with 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema. For an arithmetic operation like this, the description is complete - it states what it does and what it returns. The low complexity means no further documentation is necessary.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (a and b) having descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'a and b' which maps directly to the parameters, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema's own documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 has a specific verb ('add'), clear resource ('two numbers'), and states the result ('Returns the sum'). It clearly communicates the operation. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'multiply' tool, but the verb 'add' makes the difference self-evident.

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 its usage: use it when adding numbers. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling 'multiply' alternative. However, given the simplicity of the tool, the implied usage is reasonably clear and adequate.

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