safe_prime_pairs

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 but lacks critical behavioral details: it does not specify the output format (e.g., list of pairs, count), performance characteristics (e.g., computational complexity for large limits), or any constraints (e.g., limit range, memory usage). For a 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, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The additional context ('Domain: arithmetic, Category: special_primes') is brief and potentially useful for categorization. There is no wasted verbiage, and the structure is clear, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

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 complexity of generating prime pairs, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., pairs of numbers, a count, or a structured list), any limitations (e.g., performance for large limits), or error handling. For a tool with these contextual gaps, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to be fully helpful.

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 with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'up to limit', which clarifies that 'limit' is an upper bound for the search, adding meaning beyond the schema's type information. However, it does not specify the parameter's semantics in detail (e.g., that 'limit' must be a positive integer, or typical usage ranges). This provides some value but is incomplete, aligning with the baseline for moderate schema coverage.

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 Sophie Germain and safe prime pairs up to limit.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), the resource ('Sophie Germain and safe prime pairs'), and the scope ('up to limit'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'is_safe_prime' or 'is_sophie_germain_prime', which are predicates rather than pair generators, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 ('arithmetic') and category ('special_primes'), but this is generic and does not help an agent decide between this tool and siblings like 'twin_prime_pairs' or 'cousin_primes'. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool recommendations.

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