mcp-sympy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It does not disclose if this is a read-only operation, its computational complexity, error handling, or output format, making it inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single phrase, 'Absolute value.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While under-specified, it is not verbose or poorly structured.

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 mathematical nature and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, usage, or behavior, and while an output schema exists, the description fails to provide necessary context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'expr' documented as 'Expression'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Absolute value.' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_abs' without specifying what it does. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination (e.g., 'compute the absolute value of a symbolic expression') and does not differentiate from sibling tools, which are all mathematical operations in SymPy.

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. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., other SymPy functions), leaving the agent without usage direction.

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