mcp-sympy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Hyperbolic cosine' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only computation, what permissions might be needed, error conditions, or output characteristics. It fails to describe any behavioral traits beyond the mathematical concept.

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 represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary information about the tool's purpose and usage, making it inefficient 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?

For a mathematical computation tool with no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to explain what the tool actually does, when to use it, or any behavioral context. Given the rich sibling tool context, this description leaves critical 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 single parameter 'expr' documented as 'Expression.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not additive parameter semantics.

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 'Hyperbolic cosine' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'sympy_cosh' without specifying what the tool does. It doesn't indicate this is a mathematical function that computes the hyperbolic cosine of an expression, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like sympy_cos or sympy_sinh.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling mathematical functions available (e.g., sympy_cos, sympy_sinh, sympy_tanh), there's no indication of when hyperbolic cosine is the appropriate choice or what mathematical context it serves.

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