primes_range

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., computational complexity, range limits, or side effects). The tool is likely read-only for computation, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 with 8 words, fitting in a single sentence. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, as the dual-mode phrasing is ambiguous.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not explain return values or behavior. For 3 parameters and potential dual-mode usage, more context is needed, such as what happens when limit is specified alongside start/end.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It associates start/end with 'range' and limit with 'first N primes', but it fails to explain how the limit parameter works when start and end are required, leading to confusion.

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 lists primes, but it ambiguously mentions two modes ('in a range' and 'first N primes') while the schema requires both start and end, making the 'first N' mode unclear. It distinguishes from siblings like is_prime (which checks a single number) but doesn't fully resolve the dual-mode inconsistency.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings include is_prime, factor_int, etc., but the description provides no context for selecting primes_range over checking primality or factoring numbers.

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