incremental_sieve

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 efficiency but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as computational complexity, memory usage, error handling, or output format. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core idea. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes domain/category tags. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context.

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 complexity (three parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the algorithm's behavior, parameter roles, or expected results. For a mathematical tool with specific inputs, more detail is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain what 'current_primes', 'current_limit', or 'new_limit' represent, their constraints, or how they interact. This leaves the semantics unclear and fails to compensate for 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 states the tool is an 'incremental sieve for extending existing sieve results efficiently', which provides a vague purpose. It specifies the domain (arithmetic) and category (sieve_algorithms), but does not clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sieve_of_eratosthenes' or 'segmented_sieve', nor does it explicitly state what resource (e.g., prime numbers) it operates on. This leaves the purpose somewhat ambiguous.

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 efficiency but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools related to sieves and primes, the lack of comparative context makes it unclear when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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