sieve_of_sundaram

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 algorithm's purpose but doesn't describe key behaviors: what the output looks like (e.g., list of primes up to limit), performance characteristics, error handling, or limitations. For a computational tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 domain/category metadata. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., list of odd primes), error conditions, or algorithmic specifics. For a sieve algorithm that likely outputs structured data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context.

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, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. However, with only one parameter and a common mathematical context, the baseline is 3 as the agent might infer 'limit' refers to the upper bound for prime generation.

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: 'finds odd primes by eliminating specific composite patterns.' It specifies the verb ('finds'), resource ('odd primes'), and method ('eliminating specific composite patterns'), and includes domain/category context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sieve_of_eratosthenes' or 'sieve_of_atkin', which prevents 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 algorithm's domain and category but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons to sibling tools like other sieve algorithms. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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