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. The description only states what the tool calculates without mentioning any behavioral traits: no information about error handling (e.g., for non-integer inputs), performance characteristics, mathematical precision, or return format. For a computational tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 ('Greatest common divisor.') but under-specified rather than appropriately sized. While it wastes no words, it fails to provide necessary context that would help an AI agent use the tool effectively. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase doesn't provide enough 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, 2 parameters with full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which means the description needn't explain return values), the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It doesn't provide usage context or behavioral transparency that would be helpful for an AI agent, especially with no annotations provided.

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 both parameters 'a' and 'b' documented as 'Integer' in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info 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 'Greatest common divisor' restates the tool name 'sympy_gcd' (tautology) without specifying the action verb or resource. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'sympy_lcm' (least common multiple) or other mathematical operations in the extensive sibling list. A more helpful description would specify it calculates the GCD of two integers using SymPy.

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. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'sympy_lcm' for related operations or other mathematical functions in the list. There's no context about when this tool is appropriate versus other calculation methods.

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