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. 'Square root.' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only computation, whether it modifies state, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral information is a significant gap that leaves the agent guessing about safe and correct usage.

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 two words. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no unnecessary verbiage. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick scanning, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 relieves the description from explaining return values), the description is still incomplete. It lacks context about when to use it, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings. With no annotations and minimal description, an agent would struggle to use this tool effectively in the broader context of the many SymPy operations available.

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 'expr' parameter documented as 'Expression'. The description 'Square root.' does not add any meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify the format of 'expr' or give examples). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 'Square root.' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'sympy_sqrt'. It does not specify what resource is being operated on (e.g., a mathematical expression) or distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., sympy_cbrt for cube root). While the name implies a mathematical function, the description adds no clarifying detail.

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. It does not mention any specific context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., sympy_root for general roots or sympy_powsimp for power simplification). Without such information, an agent cannot make an informed selection among the many mathematical operation tools available.

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