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. 'Imaginary part' gives no information about what the tool actually returns, how it handles different input types, whether it performs symbolic computation, what happens with non-complex inputs, or any error conditions. This is completely inadequate 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?

While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description doesn't contain enough information to be useful - it's so sparse that it fails to communicate basic functionality. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide meaningful guidance.

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 this is a mathematical computation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is severely incomplete. While the output schema might document return values, the description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, what inputs it expects, or how it behaves. For a tool in a crowded namespace of mathematical functions, this is inadequate.

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 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'expr', and the tool description provides absolutely no information about what this parameter should contain. Users have no indication that 'expr' should be a mathematical expression in string format, what syntax is expected, or examples of valid inputs. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Imaginary part' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_im' (where 'im' likely stands for imaginary). It doesn't specify what the tool actually does - that it extracts the imaginary component from a complex expression. While it hints at mathematical functionality, it lacks a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sympy_re' (real part) or 'sympy_conjugate'.

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. With numerous sibling tools in the SymPy ecosystem (including 'sympy_re' for real part, 'sympy_conjugate', and 'sympy_as_real_imag'), there's no indication of when this specific imaginary part extraction function is appropriate versus other complex number operations.

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