prime_gap

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 the calculation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as input validation (e.g., must p be prime?), error handling, performance characteristics, or output format. For a computational tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 front-loaded, consisting of one clear sentence followed by domain/category metadata. There's no wasted verbiage, and the core purpose is stated immediately. However, the domain/category tags, while informative, could be integrated more seamlessly.

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 computational nature, 1 parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meaning, output format, error conditions, or usage context. For a tool that performs a specific mathematical calculation, more detail is needed to ensure correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameter 'p'. It doesn't explain what 'p' represents (presumably a prime number), its valid range, or any constraints. With 1 parameter and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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: 'Calculate the gap between a prime and the next prime.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('gap'), and domain context ('prime gaps'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'prime_gaps_analysis' or 'largest_prime_gap_in_range', 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 the domain and category but doesn't indicate prerequisites, constraints (e.g., input range), or when to choose this over siblings like 'next_prime' or 'prime_gaps_analysis'. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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