is_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (checks primality) but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as performance characteristics (e.g., handling large numbers), error handling (e.g., for non-integer inputs), or output format (e.g., boolean or detailed result). The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic operation.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and definition. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, and the second provides essential context with domain/category tags. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 low complexity (single integer input, simple boolean-like output), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. For a primality check tool, more context (e.g., algorithmic approach or limitations) would enhance completeness, but it's adequate for the simple use case.

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 adds meaning by specifying that 'n' is a 'number' to check for primality, clarifying the parameter's role. However, it doesn't detail constraints (e.g., positive integers only) or examples. With zero parameters documented in the schema, the description compensates adequately but could be more informative.

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 ('if a number is prime'), and provides a precise mathematical definition ('A prime number is only divisible by 1 and itself'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on primality testing, unlike other tools that perform different mathematical operations (e.g., 'abs_value', 'add', 'fibonacci').

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 through the domain/category tags ('Domain: arithmetic, Category: number_theory'), suggesting it's for mathematical contexts. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'fermat_primality_test' or 'miller_rabin_test' among siblings) or any prerequisites like input constraints. No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned.

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