subtract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the core behavior without mentioning side effects, which is acceptable for a pure arithmetic function. However, it does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects or describe return behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence with no extraneous details. It effectively communicates the core operation in minimal words.

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 arithmetic tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks critical parameter details (order of operands) and any mention of return format or errors. The minimal schema and absence of annotations increase the need for a more thorough description.

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 does not clarify the order of subtraction. The phrase 'subtract one number from another' is ambiguous regarding whether a - b or b - a is intended. Since subtraction is non-commutative, this is a significant gap for the two integer parameters.

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 a specific verb 'subtract' and the object 'one number from another', making it distinct from sibling tools like add and multiply.

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 is self-explanatory for a simple arithmetic operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling add or multiply tools. The scoping is implied by the operation rather than stated.

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