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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Gamma function.' gives no information about whether this computes values, simplifies expressions, handles complex numbers, requires specific input formats, or what the output entails. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 concise with two words, this is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. The description fails to convey essential information, making it ineffective despite its brevity. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase doesn't provide adequate 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 the tool's mathematical nature, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does with the gamma function, potential limitations, or how it fits among siblings, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand proper usage.

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 'expr' documented as 'Expression', so the schema provides basic parameter info. The description adds no meaning beyond this, but with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 'Gamma function.' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what the tool does. It doesn't indicate whether this computes, evaluates, or manipulates gamma functions, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'sympy_factorial' or 'sympy_zeta' which might involve related mathematical functions.

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_factorial', 'sympy_zeta', 'sympy_evaluate'), the description offers no context for selection, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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