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. It mentions 'high precision,' which adds useful behavioral context beyond the basic function. However, it does not disclose other traits like error handling, performance, or output format (e.g., numeric range or special cases). The description is adequate but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality: 'Calculate sine of an angle in radians with high precision.' The domain/category tags are appended concisely. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is minimal but functional. It covers the basic purpose and unit, but for a mathematical tool, it could benefit from more context like precision details or usage examples. It's complete enough for a simple function but lacks richness.

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 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'angle' of type 'number.' The description adds meaning by specifying 'in radians,' clarifying the unit, but does not provide further details like valid ranges (e.g., any real number) or examples. With low schema coverage, it partially compensates but not fully.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate sine of an angle in radians with high precision.' It specifies the verb ('Calculate'), resource ('sine'), and input unit ('radians'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'sin_degrees' which uses degrees. The domain/category tags further clarify its mathematical context.

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 implies usage by specifying 'in radians,' which differentiates it from 'sin_degrees.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sin_series' or other trigonometric functions, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is clear but not comprehensive.

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