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. It states the action ('return the next prime') but doesn't describe key behaviors such as error handling (e.g., for non-integer inputs), performance characteristics (e.g., computational complexity for large n), or output format (though an output schema exists). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 with zero waste: 'Return the next prime after n.' It is front-loaded and directly conveys the core functionality without unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (single integer input), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool does. However, it lacks behavioral details like error handling or performance notes, which would be beneficial despite the output schema. Overall, it's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 parameter 'n' documented as 'Integer'. The description adds minimal value beyond this by specifying 'after n', which reinforces the parameter's role but doesn't provide additional semantics like valid ranges or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate 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 'Return the next prime after n' clearly specifies the verb ('return'), resource ('next prime'), and scope ('after n'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sympy_isprime' (checks primality), 'sympy_prevprime' (previous prime), and 'sympy_prime' (n-th prime), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage by stating 'after n', which suggests it's for finding the next prime given an integer input. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sympy_prevprime' or 'sympy_prime', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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