mcp-sympy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'Least common multiple.' reveals nothing about the tool's behavior - no information about what it returns, error conditions, computational characteristics, or side effects. For a mathematical computation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 the description is extremely concise (two words), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary information about the tool's purpose and usage. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the minimal content doesn't fulfill the description's required functions.

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, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description should at minimum explain what the tool calculates. The existence of an output schema means the description needn't explain return values, but it still needs to clarify the tool's mathematical operation and distinguish it from similar tools like 'sympy_gcd'. The current description is incomplete for effective tool selection.

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 100% description coverage with both parameters 'a' and 'b' documented as 'Integer'. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_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 'Least common multiple.' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'sympy_lcm' (LCM stands for least common multiple). It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (calculate the LCM of two integers) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sympy_gcd' (greatest common divisor). The description lacks a clear verb and resource specification.

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 like 'sympy_gcd' for related mathematical operations, nor does it specify any context or prerequisites for using this LCM calculator. There's complete absence of usage instructions.

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