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. It mentions 'compute' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, error handling for invalid inputs, computational complexity, or output format. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic operation.

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 a single sentence 'Compute series expansion.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place in this minimal statement.

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 series expansion with 4 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on mathematical assumptions, sibling differentiation, and behavioral traits, but the output schema mitigates some gaps. It's minimally adequate but with clear deficiencies.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (expr, variable, point, order). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid expressions or mathematical constraints. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Compute series expansion' states a clear mathematical operation but lacks specificity about what type of series (e.g., Taylor, Laurent) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sympy_expand' or 'sympy_limit' that might perform related expansions. It's vague about the mathematical context beyond the basic verb.

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 for mathematical operations (e.g., sympy_expand, sympy_limit, sympy_simplify), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for choosing this tool over others.

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