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. 'Divisor function.' reveals nothing about the tool's behavior—whether it's read-only, has side effects, requires specific inputs, or what it returns. For a mathematical function tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 rather than efficiently informative. It fails to front-load essential information, making it ineffective despite its brevity. Every word should add value, but here it merely repeats the name.

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 complexity (mathematical function with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. Although an output schema exists (which might help with return values), the description does not compensate for missing behavioral and parameter context, leaving critical gaps for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'k' and 'n' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters represent (e.g., 'k' as the exponent, 'n' as the integer). Without any parameter semantics, the agent cannot understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 'Divisor function.' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., compute the sum of k-th powers of divisors of n), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'sympy_divisors' which likely returns divisors rather than their sum. The purpose remains vague.

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. There are no explicit or implied instructions on context, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'sympy_divisors' for listing divisors). This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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