sum_two_numbers

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' only states the operation without any information about side effects, error handling, performance, or return format. It fails to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on behavior and parameters that could be helpful for more robust use.

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 the schema provides no descriptions for parameters 'a' and 'b'. The description 'Add two numbers' implies these are numbers to be added but doesn't specify their roles (e.g., which is first operand), constraints, or examples. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'). It's unambiguous about what the tool does. However, with no sibling tools to differentiate from, it cannot achieve the full 5 points for sibling differentiation.

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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With no sibling tools, there's no explicit comparison, but it lacks even basic usage context.

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