mcp-sympy

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers zero behavioral information. It doesn't mention that this is a mathematical computation, whether it's read-only or has side effects, what format the expression should be in, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and completely fails to meet it.

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 technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't earn its place - it provides almost no useful information. Good conciseness balances brevity with completeness, which this description fails to achieve.

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 that this is a mathematical function with no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't explain what the tool actually does, when to use it, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool in a complex mathematical library with many similar alternatives, this minimal description is inadequate.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents the single 'expr' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 tangent' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_atan' without specifying what the tool does. It doesn't mention that this is a mathematical function from the sympy library that computes the inverse tangent of an expression, nor does it distinguish this trigonometric function from its many siblings in the sympy family.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 100+ sibling tools including other trigonometric functions (sin, cos, tan, asin, acos) and mathematical operations, there's no indication of when arc tangent is appropriate versus other inverse functions or mathematical transformations.

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