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 the tool 'gets' free symbols, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what format the output takes (e.g., list of symbols), whether it handles complex expressions, or any limitations. 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 sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by including key details, but as-is, it's efficient.

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 expression analysis), the description is minimal. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but with no annotations and a vague purpose, it lacks completeness. It doesn't address context like what 'free symbols' are or how this fits with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement.

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 one parameter 'expr' described as 'Expression'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes a valid expression or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 free symbols in expression' clearly states the action (get) and target (free symbols in expression), but it's vague about what 'free symbols' means in mathematical context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like sympy_atoms or sympy_symbols, which might have related functionality. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 in the SymPy server (e.g., sympy_atoms, sympy_symbols, sympy_args), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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