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. 'Factor an expression' implies a read-only transformation, but it does not specify if it handles symbolic or numeric expressions, error conditions, or output format. The description lacks details on performance, limitations, or side effects, which is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single sentence, 'Factor an expression.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 factoring), the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. With no annotations and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description at least states the purpose. However, it lacks context on mathematical domains, error handling, or sibling differentiation, making it only marginally complete for basic 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 100% description coverage, with 'expr' documented as 'String expression to factor'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as examples of valid expressions or formatting rules. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Factor an expression' states the action (factor) and target (expression), which is clear but minimal. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'sympy_factorint' (factor integers) or 'sympy_expand' (expand expressions), leaving ambiguity about its specific mathematical scope. The purpose is understandable but lacks precision.

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 for mathematical operations (e.g., 'sympy_expand', 'sympy_simplify', 'sympy_factorint'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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