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 tool performs addition but doesn't describe error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance characteristics, or output format. For a simple arithmetic tool, this is somewhat acceptable but lacks completeness.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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 with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on output (e.g., returns a number), error cases, or precision, which could be helpful given the mathematical context and sibling tools.

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 implies two parameters ('两个数字' - two numbers), which aligns with the schema's 'a' and 'b'. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add details like parameter order, data types beyond 'numbers', or examples. It compensates minimally but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.

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 as '执行两个数字的加法运算' (perform addition of two numbers), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'subtract', 'multiply', and 'divide' by specifying addition, though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives in the description itself.

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 'sum' (which might handle multiple numbers) or 'complex_add' (for complex numbers). There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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