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 tool returns a value but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like computational complexity, error handling (e.g., for large n), or output format. For a mathematical tool with zero 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, efficient sentence: 'Return the n-th prime.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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, simple mathematical function) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., performance or limitations), which is notable since no annotations are provided.

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 the parameter 'n' documented as 'Positive integer (1-indexed)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as range limits or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return the n-th prime.' It specifies the verb ('Return') and resource ('the n-th prime'), making it unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'sympy_nextprime' or 'sympy_isprime', which would require 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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'sympy_nextprime', 'sympy_isprime', 'sympy_primepi'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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