add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add two numbers together' clearly implies a pure, deterministic, side-effect-free arithmetic operation. It does not mention potential precision or rounding behavior, but the openly simple scope makes this a minor omission.

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 six words long, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter arithmetic tool, the description combined with full parameter schemas and an output schema is complete. The agent has everything needed to invoke add correctly and infer what the tool will do.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters ('The first number' and 'The second number'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the operation ('Add') and the resource ('two numbers'), making it immediately obvious what the tool does. It also inherently distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'multiply' by describing addition rather than multiplication.

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 that the tool should be used when the desired operation is addition, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the sibling 'multiply'. For a simple two-tool arithmetic context this is sufficient, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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