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 states 'Get repr of expression', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., invalid input), performance (e.g., computational cost), or output specifics (though an output schema exists). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 'Get repr of expression.', a single sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse, though it may be overly brief for clarity.

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 simplicity (one parameter, high schema coverage, output schema provided), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on why to use this over similar tools and doesn't explain the 'repr' concept, which could be confusing. With annotations absent, it should provide more behavioral insight, but the output schema mitigates some completeness issues.

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 100% description coverage, with 'expr' documented as 'SymPy expression string'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 'Get repr of expression' states a verb ('Get') and resource ('repr of expression'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'repr' specifically means (e.g., Python representation, symbolic form) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sympy_str' or 'sympy_latex', which likely output different representations of expressions.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'sympy_str', 'sympy_latex', 'sympy_python_code') that might output different representations, the description lacks any context for selection, such as use cases or output format comparisons.

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