mersenne_prime_exponents

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 the tool retrieves 'known' exponents, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether this is a lookup from a fixed database, a computational process, or if it has any limitations (e.g., performance, data freshness). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, followed by optional metadata in parentheses. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent, but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format. For a read-only lookup tool, this might suffice, but the absence of annotations and output schema means the agent must infer more from limited information.

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 1 parameter ('limit') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds value by explaining that 'limit' bounds the exponents retrieved ('up to a limit'), which clarifies its purpose. However, it does not specify units (e.g., integer values), valid ranges, or default behavior, leaving some ambiguity. Given the low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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: 'Get known Mersenne prime exponents up to a limit.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Mersenne prime exponents'), and scope ('up to a limit'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mersenne_numbers' or 'is_mersenne_prime', which are related but distinct operations.

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 a 'Domain' and 'Category' (arithmetic, special_primes), but this is generic metadata that does not help an agent choose between sibling tools like 'mersenne_numbers' (which might compute Mersenne numbers) or 'is_mersenne_prime' (which tests primality). No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are indicated.

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