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. 'Expand an expression' implies a read-only transformation, but it doesn't specify if this is a pure computation, whether it modifies state, what errors might occur (e.g., invalid input), or any performance considerations. The description lacks essential behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 'Expand an expression.', consisting of just three words. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 complexity of mathematical operations and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what 'expand' means mathematically, how it differs from sibling tools, and behavioral details (since no annotations are provided). For a tool with many alternatives and no annotations, more guidance is needed to be fully helpful.

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 'String expression to expand'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid expressions or formatting requirements. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 'Expand an expression' states a clear verb ('expand') and resource ('an expression'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what type of expansion (algebraic, trigonometric, etc.) or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'sympy_expand_complex', 'sympy_expand_log', or 'sympy_expand_trig', which suggests different expansion types. The purpose is vague regarding the specific mathematical operation.

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 in the SymPy family (e.g., 'sympy_expand_complex', 'sympy_expand_log', 'sympy_expand_trig', 'sympy_simplify', 'sympy_factor'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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