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. It mentions 'Simplify radicals' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies the input expression in-place, returns a new expression, handles complex numbers, or has any side effects. For a 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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Simplify radicals,' which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (mathematical simplification), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameters, or usage context, making it incomplete for effective agent use without relying heavily on the output schema.

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 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'expr' of type string. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining that 'expr' should be a SymPy expression string or providing examples. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but since no additional semantics are provided, it scores lower at 3 due to the lack of compensation for the schema gap.

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 'Simplify radicals' states the tool's purpose clearly with a specific verb ('Simplify') and target ('radicals'), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'sympy_simplify' (general simplification) or 'sympy_ratsimp' (rational simplification), leaving ambiguity about its specific scope within the SymPy ecosystem.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about its specific use cases (e.g., simplifying square roots, rationalizing denominators) or comparisons to siblings like 'sympy_simplify' or 'sympy_ratsimp', offering no help in tool selection.

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