goldbach_conjecture_check

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 states what the tool does conceptually but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify the output format (e.g., boolean result, error handling for invalid inputs), performance characteristics, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in one sentence and adding domain context in parentheses. There is no wasted verbiage, and the structure is clear. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity of a mathematical conjecture-checking tool, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on input validation, output format, error conditions, and how it differs from sibling tools. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional 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, with one parameter 'n' of type integer. The description implies 'n' should be an even integer > 2 but does not explicitly state this requirement or explain the parameter's role. It adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: checking the Goldbach conjecture for a given even integer. It specifies the mathematical domain (arithmetic) and category (additive_number_theory), which helps contextualize the tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'goldbach_pairs' or 'weak_goldbach_check', which are related but distinct operations.

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 mentions the mathematical context but does not specify prerequisites, constraints (e.g., input must be an even integer > 2), or compare it to siblings like 'goldbach_pairs' (which might return the prime pairs) or 'weak_goldbach_check' (for odd numbers). This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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