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. 'Fibonacci number.' reveals nothing about the tool's behavior - whether it computes, returns symbolic expressions, handles large inputs, has performance characteristics, or what format the output takes. For a mathematical computation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to convey essential information that would help an agent understand and use the tool. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase fails to provide meaningful value.

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 there's an output schema (which means the description doesn't need to explain return values) and the input schema has 100% coverage, the description's inadequacy is partially mitigated. However, for a mathematical computation tool with no annotations, the description should still provide basic behavioral context about what the tool computes. The presence of structured data raises this from a 1-2 to a minimal viable 3.

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 single parameter 'n' documented as 'Non-negative integer'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter details in the description.

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 'Fibonacci number.' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (computes the nth Fibonacci number) or distinguish it from sibling tools like sympy_lucas (which computes Lucas numbers). While the name implies mathematical computation, the description adds no meaningful clarification.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention mathematical computation contexts, doesn't differentiate from similar mathematical sequence tools like sympy_lucas or sympy_catalan, and offers no prerequisites or constraints. The agent receives zero usage direction.

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