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. 'Real part.' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it's a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether it evaluates or simplifies the expression, or any error conditions. The description is essentially non-functional for behavioral understanding.

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 maximally concise at just two words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than effective conciseness, it technically meets the criteria for brevity and zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, though there are far too few words to be helpful.

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 tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is woefully incomplete. While the output schema may document return values, the description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameter means, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably performs mathematical operations, this level of documentation is inadequate.

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 'expr', and the tool description provides absolutely no information about what this parameter should contain. It doesn't indicate that 'expr' should be a mathematical expression, what format it should be in, or provide any examples. With 0% schema coverage and no parameter information in the description, this fails to meet even baseline expectations.

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 'Real part.' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'sympy_re' (where 're' typically stands for real part). It doesn't specify what resource it acts on (mathematical expressions) or what the tool actually does (extract/return the real part of a complex expression). While the name implies mathematical functionality, the description fails to provide a clear verb+resource statement.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'sympy_im' (imaginary part), 'sympy_conjugate', or 'sympy_as_real_imag' which are related operations on complex expressions. There's no context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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