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. The description 'Expand complex' gives no information about what the tool does operationally, such as whether it modifies data, requires specific inputs, or has side effects. It fails to describe the tool's behavior beyond the vague name.

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 only two words, which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, but as per the scoring criteria, it earns full points for being brief and to-the-point.

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 (implied by the sibling tools and SymPy context), the description is completely inadequate. With no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a vague description, it fails to provide necessary context. While an output schema exists, the description does not compensate for the lack of input and behavioral information, making it insufficient for effective use.

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 one parameter 'expr' with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description 'Expand complex' does not mention the parameter at all, offering no clarification on what 'expr' should be (e.g., a mathematical expression string). This leaves the parameter entirely undocumented.

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 complex' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_expand_complex' with minimal variation. It does not specify what 'complex' refers to (e.g., complex numbers, complex expressions) or what 'expand' means in this context. While the name suggests it's related to SymPy's symbolic mathematics, the description fails to clarify the purpose beyond the 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. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'sympy_expand', 'sympy_expand_trig'), there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred. This lack of context makes it difficult for an AI agent to select this tool appropriately.

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