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. While 'simplify' implies a read-only transformation, the description doesn't specify what 'simplify' means mathematically, whether it handles symbolic or numeric expressions, what assumptions it makes, or what the output looks like. For a mathematical tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Simplify') and resource ('an expression'), making it immediately understandable despite its brevity.

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 mathematical nature and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and many similar sibling tools, it should provide more context about what 'simplify' means specifically versus other transformations. The high schema coverage helps but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of behavioral context.

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%, with the single parameter 'expr' documented as 'String expression to simplify'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb ('simplify') and resource ('an expression'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'sympy_factor', 'sympy_expand', or 'sympy_ratsimp' that also perform mathematical simplifications or transformations, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools performing related mathematical operations (e.g., 'sympy_factor', 'sympy_expand', 'sympy_trigsimp'), there's no indication of what specific type of simplification this tool performs or when it's preferred over other tools.

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