is_admissible_pattern

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 fails to describe any behavioral traits such as what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, an explanation), error handling, performance characteristics, or any side effects. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 to the point, consisting of a single sentence that states the tool's purpose and includes domain/category information. It's front-loaded with the main action, though it could be 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 prime constellations and the lack of annotations, output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for a user to understand what the tool does, how to use it correctly, or what to expect in return, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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 'pattern' of type array of integers. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what the pattern represents (e.g., differences between primes), valid formats, or constraints. This leaves the parameter semantics largely undocumented.

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's purpose as checking if a pattern is admissible for prime constellations, which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the domain (arithmetic) and category (prime_patterns), but doesn't explain what 'admissible' means or what constitutes a prime constellation, leaving the exact functionality 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might be related (like 'prime_constellations' or 'prime_triplets' in the list), leaving the user without context for appropriate application.

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