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. 'Arc sine' gives no information about the tool's behavior, such as whether it performs symbolic computation, returns numeric values, handles domain restrictions, or requires specific inputs. This is 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?

While concise with two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to front-load essential information, such as the tool's function or output, 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 presence of an output schema (which likely describes the return value), the description's minimalism is less critical. However, with no annotations and a vague description, it lacks completeness for understanding the tool's purpose and usage in context, though the output schema mitigates some gaps.

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 (between -1 and 1)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, but the schema provides complete parameter documentation, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Arc sine' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'sympy_asin' (asin stands for arc sine). It fails to specify what the tool does with the input expression, such as computing the inverse sine function or returning a symbolic expression. While it distinguishes from siblings by its name, the description itself provides no meaningful differentiation beyond the obvious.

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 like sympy_sin or other trigonometric functions. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the tool name.

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