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. 'Error function.' gives no information about what the tool does behaviorally—whether it computes, evaluates, simplifies, or returns a symbolic expression. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or computational characteristics, making it inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 'Error function.', consisting of two words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. In terms of structure and size, it is optimal for minimal content.

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 (a mathematical function with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose or behavior, relying solely on structured fields. With no annotations and a vague description, it does not provide enough context for effective use, despite the output schema handling return values.

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. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema handles parameter documentation sufficiently.

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 'Error function.' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_erf' without specifying what the tool actually does. It lacks a clear verb and resource, failing to distinguish this mathematical function tool from its many siblings like sympy_sin or sympy_gamma, which also have similarly minimal descriptions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools for mathematical operations (e.g., sympy_sin, sympy_gamma, sympy_sqrt), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving 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.