removeprimes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions removing primes and clearing the table (via None), but does not specify whether the operation is reversible, what happens to non-existent primes, or any state changes. Missing critical details for a mutation tool.

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 very concise—one sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 has an output schema (unseen), the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks information about side effects, idempotency, or preconditions. The description is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps for complex use cases.

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 schema provides full coverage of the single parameter (100%), and the description adds the key nuance that passing None clears the table, which is not stated in the schema. This extra information enhances the agent's understanding.

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 action ('Remove primes') and the target ('factorisation table'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'addprimes' and 'init_primes'. However, 'factorisation table' is somewhat jargon-heavy and may not be immediately clear to all agents.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to remove primes versus clear the table or use other prime-related tools. The description lacks contextual hints for decision-making.

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