add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('add two numbers together') but doesn't cover traits like error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance, or output format. This is a basic description with significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence: 'Add two numbers together.' It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.

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 (basic arithmetic), no annotations, no output schema, and simple parameters, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output. For such a simple tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps that could be addressed with more context.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by clarifying that parameters 'a' and 'b' are numbers to be added. It adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions by specifying their role in the operation. Since there are only two parameters and their purpose is clear, this is adequate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add two numbers together.' It specifies the verb ('add') and the resource ('two numbers'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_percentage' or 'multiply', though the operation is inherently distinct.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'subtract' or 'multiply', nor does it specify contexts where addition is preferred over other operations. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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