weak_goldbach_check

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 the tool 'checks' the conjecture but does not disclose behavioral traits such as what the output looks like (e.g., returns a boolean, a list of primes, or an error for invalid input), performance characteristics (e.g., computational limits for large n), or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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 in the first sentence. The second sentence adds domain context but is somewhat redundant. There is no wasted verbiage, but it could be more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 a mathematical conjecture-checking tool, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how it handles edge cases (e.g., n <= 5, even n), or any limitations. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 'n' with 0% description coverage. The description does not add any semantic information about 'n', such as its expected range (odd integer > 5), format, or constraints. For a tool checking a number theory conjecture, this is a significant gap, as the agent needs to know what input is valid.

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: 'Check weak Goldbach conjecture: every odd integer > 5 is sum of three primes.' It specifies the verb ('Check'), the mathematical conjecture, and the domain/category. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'goldbach_conjecture_check' (which likely checks the standard Goldbach conjecture), 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 mentions the domain ('arithmetic, Category: additive_number_theory'), but this is too vague to help an agent decide between this and other number theory tools like 'goldbach_conjecture_check' or 'goldbach_pairs'. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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