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 states 'Integer factorization' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as performance characteristics (e.g., handling large integers), error handling (e.g., for non-integer inputs), or output format (though an output schema exists). This is a significant gap for a computational tool with no annotation coverage.

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 phrase 'Integer factorization', which is appropriately sized and front-loaded with zero waste. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose 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 complexity (mathematical factorization), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on usage, behavioral details, and parameter nuances, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding despite the output schema.

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 one parameter 'n' described as 'Integer', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as input constraints (e.g., positive integers only) or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 'Integer factorization' states the mathematical operation but is vague about implementation specifics. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on factorization rather than other symbolic operations (e.g., sympy_factor is for polynomial factorization), but lacks detail on what 'factorization' entails (e.g., prime factorization vs. general).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sympy_factor (for polynomials) or sympy_isprime (for primality testing). The description implies usage for integer factorization but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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