add_numbers

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details beyond the addition itself. It does not mention whether the operation is pure, what it returns, how errors are handled, or any side effects. 'Add' implies a mathematical operation, but the description lacks the contextual depth needed to fully inform an agent.

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 short and to the point, consisting of a single sentence with no filler. The word 'together' is slightly redundant with 'add', but overall it is efficient and front-loaded. For a tool of this simplicity, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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?

Despite the minimal text, the tool is simple enough that the description covers the core behavior, and the presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be spelled out. However, some guidance on usage context or exception cases would have been beneficial, so it is not the maximum possible.

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 schema only specifies that 'a' and 'b' are numbers, with 0% schema description coverage. The description merely repeats the existence of two numbers without adding any semantics about the role of each parameter, order, precision, or potential edge cases. Since addition is commutative, the lack of order explanation is less problematic, but the tool still adds no value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('add') and clearly identifies the resource ('two numbers'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. The sibling tool 'roll_dice' is completely unrelated to arithmetic, so an agent can instantly distinguish this tool from siblings without further reading.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. However, the simple, conventional nature of addition and the unrelated sibling make the intended usage implicit.

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