is_mersenne_prime

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 the mathematical definition but does not disclose behavioral traits such as input validation (e.g., handling of negative numbers, large integers), performance characteristics, or error handling. This leaves gaps for a mutation-free but computationally intensive tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, followed by domain/category tags. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 (mathematical check with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It defines Mersenne primes but omits details on input constraints, output format (e.g., boolean), and computational behavior. While concise, it should provide more context for effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by implying the parameter 'n' is the number to check. However, it does not specify constraints (e.g., n must be integer, possibly positive), expected format, or examples. With only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of detail beyond the schema's type reduces it to 3.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a number'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the mathematical definition of a Mersenne prime (prime of form 2^p - 1 where p is prime). The domain/category tags further clarify its scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., general primality tests like 'is_prime' or other special prime checks like 'is_fermat_prime'). The description implies usage for checking Mersenne primes but lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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