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. It mentions 'Get type' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific input formats, potential errors for invalid expressions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 low complexity (one parameter, simple purpose) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks context on usage versus siblings and behavioral details, which are minor gaps in an otherwise straightforward tool.

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 'expr' documented as 'Expression'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't clarify syntax, examples, or constraints for the expression parameter. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get type of expression' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('type of expression'), but it's vague about what 'type' means in the SymPy context. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'sympy_classify_ode' or 'sympy_isprime' which also classify or test expressions, leaving ambiguity about whether this returns mathematical types (e.g., polynomial, rational) or Python object types.

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 many sibling tools that analyze or classify expressions (e.g., 'sympy_classify_ode', 'sympy_isprime'), the description lacks context on whether this is for general type checking or specific mathematical categorization, offering no exclusions or prerequisites.

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