add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation ('Add two numbers together') and return value, but lacks details on error handling, performance, or constraints like input limits. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The structured sections (Args, Returns) enhance readability without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter details into a single sentence, but overall it's efficient.

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), no annotations, and an output schema that likely covers the return value, the description is mostly complete. It explains the operation and parameters adequately, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases or usage examples.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly defines parameters 'a' and 'b' as 'First number' and 'Second number', adding clear meaning beyond the schema's type definitions. However, it doesn't specify constraints like number ranges, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 specific action ('Add two numbers together') and identifies the resource (numbers). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'call_tool' or 'execute_prompt_with_llm' by focusing on basic arithmetic, making the purpose unambiguous and well-defined.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether it's for simple calculations or part of a larger workflow, and doesn't mention any sibling tools as alternatives, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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