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 mentions integration but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as symbolic versus numeric integration, handling of indefinite/definite integrals, error handling, or output format. For a mathematical tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, 'Integrate an expression.', which is highly concise and front-loaded. However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified, but it earns a 4 for zero waste and clear structure.

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 (symbolic integration), no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by context signals), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage, or integration specifics. With output schema handling return values, it meets a basic threshold but has clear gaps.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (expr and variable). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Integrate an expression' states the verb and resource but is vague. It specifies the action (integrate) and target (expression), but doesn't clarify mathematical integration versus other meanings or differentiate from siblings like sympy_derivative or sympy_diff. It's functional but lacks precision about scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. With many sibling tools (e.g., sympy_derivative, sympy_diff, sympy_solve), the description doesn't indicate this is for symbolic integration or suggest contexts like calculus problems. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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