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 action ('Convert') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like input format requirements (e.g., valid SymPy syntax), error handling, output format details, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Convert expression to LaTeX.') with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple conversion tool, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, or output, which the output schema might cover. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should do more to compensate, making it just above the minimum viable level.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'expr' documented as 'SymPy expression string'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as 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 'Convert expression to LaTeX' clearly states the verb ('Convert') and resource ('expression to LaTeX'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sympy_mathml' (which converts to MathML) or 'sympy_str' (which converts to string), missing explicit sibling distinction that would warrant a 5.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., sympy_mathml for MathML output or sympy_str for plain text), prerequisites, or specific contexts for LaTeX conversion, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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