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. It states the action ('Expand') but doesn't describe what expansion entails (e.g., converting sums of angles to products, applying identities), potential side effects, error conditions, or output format. For a mathematical transformation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 transformation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or examples, leaving gaps that could hinder effective use by an 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'expr' parameter documented as 'String trigonometric expression'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this (e.g., examples of valid expressions, syntax rules, or limitations), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 trigonometric expressions' clearly states the verb ('Expand') and resource ('trigonometric expressions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from other trigonometric or expansion tools in the sibling list (like 'sympy_expand', 'sympy_trigsimp', or 'sympy_simplify'), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 (e.g., 'sympy_expand', 'sympy_trigsimp', 'sympy_simplify'), there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or differences, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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