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. 'Convert expression to string' implies a read-only transformation, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a pure function, what happens with invalid input, whether it preserves expression semantics, or what the output format looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral 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 at just three words with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core operation and appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 rich sibling tool ecosystem with multiple string-output alternatives, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what format the string conversion produces, making it impossible to distinguish from tools like sympy_latex or sympy_mathml. While an output schema exists, the description should at minimum specify the type of string representation being generated.

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 parameter 'expr' well-documented as 'SymPy expression string'. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Convert expression to string' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'sympy_str' (which implies 'string conversion'). It doesn't specify what type of conversion occurs (e.g., standard string representation, LaTeX, MathML) or what distinguishes it from siblings like 'sympy_latex' or 'sympy_mathml' that also produce string outputs from expressions.

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 that produce string outputs (e.g., sympy_latex, sympy_mathml, sympy_python_code, sympy_repr_expr), there's no indication of what format this conversion produces or when it's preferred over other string-output tools.

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