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. 'Ceiling function.' does not reveal any behavioral traits—it does not indicate if this is a read-only computation, what the output entails, error conditions, or performance considerations. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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, the description is under-specified and fails to provide necessary information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; this description is too brief to be helpful, lacking structure or front-loaded details that would aid an AI agent.

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, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, usage, or behavior sufficiently, leaving gaps that could hinder correct tool selection and invocation by an AI 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 100% description coverage, with the 'expr' parameter documented as 'Expression'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Ceiling function.' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It does not specify what the tool does (e.g., compute the ceiling of a mathematical expression) or distinguish it from siblings like 'sympy_floor', which performs a related but different operation. This provides minimal guidance to an AI agent.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools (e.g., 'sympy_floor' for floor function) or provide any context for its application, such as mathematical scenarios where ceiling is appropriate. This leaves 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.