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. The single word 'Polylogarithm.' reveals nothing about the tool's behavior - whether it computes, simplifies, evaluates numerically, or performs symbolic manipulation. It doesn't mention input validation, error conditions, computational complexity, or output format. This is completely inadequate for a mathematical computation tool.

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 one word, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't contain enough information to be useful, so its brevity is a liability. A well-structured description would front-load the core purpose and action, which this completely lacks.

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 2 parameters (0% documented), no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but doesn't compensate for missing input documentation), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameters mean, or when to choose it over alternatives. The existence of an output schema slightly mitigates but doesn't address the fundamental 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters (s and z), the description must compensate but fails completely. 'Polylogarithm.' provides no information about what s and z represent, their expected formats (integers, complex numbers, symbolic expressions), valid ranges, or mathematical meaning. Users cannot understand how to properly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 'Polylogarithm.' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what action the tool performs. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its many mathematical function siblings like sympy_zeta or sympy_dirichlet_eta, which are also special functions. A better description would specify that this tool computes or evaluates the polylogarithm function.

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 100+ sibling tools for mathematical operations in SymPy, users need explicit direction about when polylogarithm calculations are appropriate versus other special functions or general computation tools. No context or prerequisites are mentioned.

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