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. 'Degree of polynomial' implies a read-only calculation, but doesn't specify whether it handles multivariate polynomials, symbolic variables, or edge cases. It doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics, or what happens with invalid input. For a mathematical computation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 at just three words, which is efficient for such a straightforward mathematical operation. However, it's arguably too brief - it could benefit from slightly more context while maintaining brevity. The structure is front-loaded but minimal, with every word serving a purpose in conveying the core function.

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 an output schema exists (which presumably describes the return value), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a mathematical computation tool with no annotations and many similar sibling tools, the description should provide more context about when this specific degree calculation is appropriate versus other polynomial operations. The description is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement in distinguishing this tool's specific role.

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 both parameters ('expr' and 'variable') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work, though the description could have added context about expected expression formats or variable naming conventions.

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 'Degree of polynomial' states what the tool does (computes polynomial degree) but is vague about scope and lacks specificity. It doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'sympy_poly' or 'sympy_coeff' that might also handle polynomial-related operations. The description provides a basic purpose but lacks the verb+resource clarity needed for optimal tool selection.

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 for polynomial manipulation (sympy_poly, sympy_factor, sympy_expand, etc.), there's no indication of when degree calculation is appropriate versus other polynomial operations. The description offers no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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