mcp-sympy

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral information. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only calculation, what mathematical domain it operates on, what precision it provides, or any computational characteristics. The description carries the full burden and completely fails to deliver.

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 three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load essential information and fails to provide even basic functionality explanation. Every sentence should earn its place, but this description doesn't provide enough substance to justify its existence.

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 mathematical complexity implied by the tool name, zero annotation coverage, 0% schema description coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which the description doesn't reference), this description is completely inadequate. It provides no mathematical context, no parameter guidance, and no behavioral transparency for what appears to be a specialized mathematical function.

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 has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'n', and the tool description provides absolutely no information about what 'n' represents, its expected format (string containing what?), valid ranges, or mathematical meaning. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented.

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 'Prime counting function' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_primepi' without specifying what it does. It doesn't provide a clear verb+resource combination or distinguish this mathematical function from its many sibling tools in the SymPy library.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no usage instructions, no mention of mathematical context, and no differentiation from related tools like 'sympy_isprime', 'sympy_nextprime', or 'sympy_prime'.

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