prime_triplets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like computational complexity, memory usage, performance characteristics for large limits, or what format the results are returned in. For a mathematical computation tool with no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 extremely concise with zero wasted words. The single sentence efficiently communicates the core functionality, and the parenthetical domain/category information is appropriately placed. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'prime triplet' (e.g., patterns like p, p+2, p+6), what format results are returned in, performance considerations, or error handling. For a computational tool with mathematical output, more context is needed 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?

The description mentions 'limit' as the parameter scope, which aligns with the single required parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no documentation about what 'limit' represents. The description adds minimal semantic context by implying it's an upper bound, but doesn't specify whether it's inclusive/exclusive, valid ranges, or units. This partially compensates for the schema gap but remains basic.

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('prime triplets'), and specifies the scope ('up to limit'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on prime triplets rather than other prime patterns like twin primes or prime quadruplets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'prime_constellations' which might overlap in functionality.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'prime_constellations', 'twin_prime_pairs', or 'cousin_primes' that handle related prime patterns. There's no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the basic arithmetic domain context.

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