largest_prime_gap_in_range

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 but lacks behavioral details like computational complexity, performance expectations for large ranges, error handling for invalid inputs, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with mathematical computations.

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 brief and to the point, with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes domain/category context efficiently. However, the lack of additional details makes it feel under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like what the tool returns (e.g., gap size, prime pair), performance considerations, or error cases. For a mathematical tool with potential complexity, more context is needed.

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, but the description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying a range via 'in a given range'. It doesn't explain what 'start' and 'end' represent (e.g., inclusive/exclusive, valid ranges, integer constraints). With low schema coverage, this is inadequate compensation.

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: 'Find the largest prime gap in a given range.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('largest prime gap'), and includes domain/category context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'prime_gap' or 'prime_gaps_analysis' that might handle similar concepts.

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 domain and category but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'prime_gap' or 'prime_gaps_analysis'. Users must infer usage from the name alone.

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