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. The description 'Hyperbolic sine.' gives no information about the tool's behavior—it doesn't indicate that this is a read-only mathematical computation, what the output format might be, potential errors, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 just two words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary detail. There's no wasted text, but it fails to provide essential information that would earn a higher score.

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 complexity of a mathematical function tool with no annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, usage, or behavior adequately. While the output schema may cover return values, the description should still provide context about what the tool does and how it fits among siblings, which it fails to do.

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 the single parameter 'expr' documented as 'Expression'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid expression or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as 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 'Hyperbolic sine.' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'sympy_sinh' without specifying what the tool does. It doesn't mention that this is a mathematical function that computes the hyperbolic sine of an expression using SymPy, nor does it distinguish it from siblings like 'sympy_sin' (regular sine) or 'sympy_cosh' (hyperbolic cosine). The purpose is implied but not explicitly stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'sympy_sin' for trigonometric sine, 'sympy_cosh' for hyperbolic cosine, or other mathematical functions in the extensive list. No context is provided 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.