cousin_primes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions what the tool does but does not disclose behavioral traits such as performance characteristics (e.g., computational complexity for large limits), output format (e.g., list of pairs, sorted order), or error handling (e.g., for invalid limits). This leaves 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by domain/category context. It uses minimal words efficiently, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema with 0% coverage, the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete. It lacks details on output format, performance, or error handling, which are important for a computational tool. The domain/category hint adds some context but doesn't fully compensate.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'limit', but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'limit' defines the upper bound for searching cousin prime pairs. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation, though it could specify constraints like 'limit must be a positive integer'.

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('cousin prime pairs'), specifies the mathematical definition ('primes differing by 4'), and includes the scope ('up to limit'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'twin_prime_pairs' by focusing on a different prime gap (4 vs 2).

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 implies usage for finding cousin primes within a limit, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'twin_prime_pairs' for primes differing by 2, or 'prime_constellations' for other patterns). It provides basic context but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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