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. 'Expand logarithmic expressions' implies a transformation operation but reveals nothing about what expansion entails mathematically, whether it's reversible, what happens with invalid inputs, or what the output format will be. For a mathematical tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 maximally concise with just three words that directly convey the core functionality. There's zero wasted language, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place in this extremely efficient description.

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 (mentioned in context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a mathematical transformation tool with no annotations and many similar siblings, the description should provide more context about what 'expand' means mathematically for logarithms and when to choose this over alternatives. The current description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's proper 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with the 'expr' parameter fully documented as 'String logarithmic expression.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 logarithmic expressions' clearly states the verb ('expand') and resource ('logarithmic expressions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like sympy_expand, sympy_expand_trig, sympy_expand_complex) beyond specifying 'logarithmic' expressions.

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 numerous sibling tools (over 100 listed), there's no indication of when logarithmic expansion is appropriate versus other expansion types (trigonometric, complex) or other mathematical operations. The description lacks any context about prerequisites 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.