twin_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 the tool finds twin prime pairs but does not describe output format (e.g., list of pairs, count), performance characteristics (e.g., computational complexity for large limits), or error handling (e.g., invalid limit values). This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: 'Find twin prime pairs up to limit.' It wastes no words and directly states the core functionality. The additional domain/category note is brief and informative. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (mathematical computation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what twin prime pairs are, the return format, performance considerations, or error cases. For a tool with no structured support, more contextual information is needed to be complete.

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, and the description mentions 'limit' but adds minimal semantics beyond the schema. It implies the parameter is an integer upper bound but does not specify constraints (e.g., positive, maximum value) or meaning (e.g., inclusive/exclusive). With low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but lacks detail, aligning with the baseline for incomplete 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 twin prime pairs up to limit.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('twin prime pairs'), and scope ('up to limit'), which is straightforward. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cousin_primes' or 'sexy_primes', which also find prime pairs with different gaps, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 lacks context such as prerequisites, limitations (e.g., performance for large limits), or comparisons to similar tools like 'cousin_primes' or 'sexy_primes' that find other types of prime pairs. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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