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. It fails to describe what the tool does (e.g., returns a tuple, modifies input, handles errors), its computational nature, or any side effects, making it impossible for an agent to understand its behavior.

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 a single phrase, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The description lacks structure (e.g., no verb or object) and doesn't front-load key information, making it unhelpful 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), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema explanation in the description, it's completely inadequate. The description fails to provide purpose, usage, parameters, or behavioral context, leaving the agent unable to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, with one undocumented parameter 'expr'. The description adds no information about what 'expr' should be (e.g., a complex symbolic expression, a string representation), its format, or examples, leaving the parameter completely unexplained.

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 real and imaginary parts' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_as_real_imag' without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't mention the verb (e.g., 'compute', 'separate', 'extract') or the resource (e.g., 'complex expression'), nor does it differentiate from siblings like 'sympy_re' or 'sympy_im' which likely handle real/imaginary parts individually.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'sympy_re' or 'sympy_im' for accessing individual parts, or other symbolic computation tools, leaving the agent with no context for tool selection.

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