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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing explicit (number type, precision, overflow, error handling). However, the operation is a pure, side-effect-free computation implied by its name, so there is little destructive behavior to warn about.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes nothing. There is no filler, hedging, or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the two parameters are self-describing. The description is sufficient for calling a trivial arithmetic tool, with the only gap being numeric type/precision expectations.

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%, but the parameters are named a and b and addition is order-independent, so semantics are self-evident. The description's "two numbers" confirms arity but adds no type or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

"Add two numbers together" states a specific verb and resource, and the operation is unambiguous even though it largely restates the tool name. No sibling differentiation is present, but the sibling (roll_dice) is unrelated, so the risk of confusion is near zero.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. For a trivial arithmetic helper this is low-stakes, but the description provides no routing signal at all.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal the die type (6-sided) and that results are returned, but says nothing about randomness/non-determinism, value range (1-6), or any upper bound on n_dice.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and scope come before any qualifying detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be described, and the description covers purpose and the sole parameter. Only minor gaps remain (default value, dice-count limits).

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does implicitly define n_dice as the number of dice to roll. It omits the default of 1 and any valid range, though the core semantics of the single parameter are conveyed.

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?

States a specific verb (roll) plus resource (dice) and scope (6-sided, count n_dice), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not need to differentiate from add_numbers since the domains are unrelated, but it also makes no explicit sibling contrast.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over alternatives or any preconditions, but for a trivial RNG utility the intent ('need random dice') is self-evident from the sentence.

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