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. While 'Add two numbers together' implies a simple computation, it doesn't address potential issues like integer overflow, error handling, or whether this is a pure function. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (two integer parameters, has output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. With no annotations and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it misses opportunities to clarify behavioral aspects or usage guidelines that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. By specifying 'two numbers together,' it clarifies that both parameters are numeric operands for addition, compensating for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions. However, it doesn't detail the specific roles of 'a' and 'b' beyond being numbers to add.

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 together' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the 'multiply' sibling tool, which performs a different mathematical operation on the same type of inputs.

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 like 'multiply' for mathematical operations. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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