twin_prime_gaps

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 what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify output format (e.g., list of gaps, statistics), performance characteristics (e.g., computational limits), error handling, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with no annotations, 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds domain/category context. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient. However, the domain/category annotation might be redundant if already inferred from tool name or context.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, and parameter meaning, which are crucial for a tool performing a mathematical computation. The domain/category hint is insufficient to bridge these gaps.

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 one parameter ('limit') with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what 'limit' means (e.g., upper bound for twin prime pairs, number of gaps to compute) or its constraints (e.g., must be positive integer). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics unclear.

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 gaps between consecutive twin prime pairs.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('gaps between consecutive twin prime pairs'), which is mathematically precise. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'prime_gap' or 'twin_prime_pairs', though the domain/category hints at specialization.

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 ('arithmetic') and category ('prime_gaps'), but offers no explicit instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'prime_gap' or 'twin_prime_pairs'. Usage is implied by 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.