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 of behavioral disclosure. 'N-th root' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it computes symbolic or numeric roots, what domain it operates on, what happens with complex inputs, whether it modifies state, what permissions are needed, or what the output format is. For a mathematical computation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't provide enough information to be useful, and every word fails to earn its place by adding meaningful value. Good conciseness balances brevity with completeness, which this description fails to achieve.

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 computation tool with no annotations, rich sibling context, and an output schema exists (which means the description doesn't need to explain return values), the description is still severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool actually computes, how it differs from similar tools, what mathematical domain it operates in, or provide any behavioral context. The existence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the complete lack of operational guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('expr' and 'n') having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 'N-th root' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'sympy_root' without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what mathematical operation is performed (computing roots of expressions), what resource is involved (mathematical expressions), or how it differs from sibling tools like 'sympy_sqrt' or 'sympy_cbrt'. The description fails to provide a clear, specific purpose 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools in the SymPy family (including sympy_sqrt for square roots, sympy_cbrt for cube roots, and sympy_roots for finding polynomial roots), there's no indication of when this specific root function is appropriate versus those alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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