mcp-sympy

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. However, it reveals nothing about the tool's behavior—such as whether it returns a tuple, handles edge cases like integers, or requires specific input formats. This lack of information is critical for a tool with an output schema but no behavioral hints.

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?

While concise with only four words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on a tautology that doesn't aid understanding, making it ineffective despite its brevity.

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 complexity (symbolic math operation), no annotations, low schema coverage, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It fails to provide essential context like purpose, usage, or parameter details, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no semantic information about the 'expr' parameter. It doesn't explain what type of expression is expected (e.g., a symbolic fraction), valid formats, or examples, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'As numerator and denominator' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'sympy_as_numer_denom' without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what the tool does (e.g., extracts numerator and denominator from a symbolic expression) or distinguish it from sibling tools like sympy_factor or sympy_together, which also manipulate expressions. The purpose remains vague.

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 offers no context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., sympy_factor for factorization or sympy_together for combining fractions), leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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