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. 'Count operations' gives no insight into whether this is a read-only operation, what it returns, potential side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a tool with one parameter and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is extremely concise with just two words, which could be seen as efficient. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than truly concise—it doesn't convey enough information to be helpful. While front-loaded, it lacks the substance needed for effective tool use.

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 has one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does with the expression, what 'operations' means, or provide any context for use. For a symbolic mathematics tool among many siblings, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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 0% description coverage, documenting only that 'expr' is a required string parameter. The description adds no information about what 'expr' should contain (e.g., a SymPy expression string), what format it expects, or what constitutes 'operations' in this context. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 'Count operations' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'sympy_count_ops'. It doesn't specify what kind of operations are being counted (e.g., arithmetic operations in a symbolic expression), what resource is involved, or how it differs from sibling tools like sympy_args or sympy_atoms that might also analyze expressions. The purpose remains vague beyond the literal name.

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 many sibling tools available for symbolic expression analysis (e.g., sympy_args, sympy_atoms, sympy_degree), there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using sympy_count_ops. This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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