MCP Math Server

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 calculates 'with high precision,' which hints at accuracy but lacks specifics on numerical stability, error handling, or performance. It does not address potential issues like input validation (e.g., handling of non-numeric inputs) or output format, leaving behavioral traits largely undefined.

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 well-structured, consisting of a single sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Calculate cosine of an angle in radians with high precision') followed by brief domain and category tags. There is no redundant or verbose language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter unit, but lacks details on behavior, error handling, and usage compared to siblings. For a simple mathematical function, this might suffice, but it misses opportunities to fully guide an agent, such as explaining output format or common pitfalls.

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 ('angle') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds value by specifying that the angle is 'in radians,' clarifying the unit beyond the schema's type definition. However, it does not explain acceptable ranges (e.g., any real number), special cases (e.g., large values), or default behaviors, leaving gaps in parameter 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 tool's purpose: 'Calculate cosine of an angle in radians with high precision.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('cosine'), and domain context ('trigonometry, basic_functions'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cos_degrees' or 'cos_series', which are closely related trigonometric functions.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions the domain ('trigonometry') and category ('basic_functions'), which implies context, but offers no explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cos_degrees' (which handles degrees) or 'cos_series' (which might compute series approximations). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical scenarios for application.

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