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. 'Compute a sum' implies a read-only operation that returns a result, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it handles infinite sums, symbolic vs. numeric computation, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a mathematical tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 ('Compute a sum'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it earns full marks for conciseness.

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 has an output schema (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a mathematical computation tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations, the description is minimal. It provides the basic purpose but lacks context about mathematical domain, precision, or relationship to sibling tools, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 all four parameters (expr, variable, lower, upper) well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already explains each parameter's purpose. According to rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info 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 'Compute a sum' states the basic action but is vague. It specifies the verb 'compute' and resource 'sum', but doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'sympy_product' or 'sympy_summation' (which appears to be a similar tool). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what kind of sum or mathematical context.

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 (e.g., 'sympy_product', 'sympy_summation'), the description doesn't indicate whether this is for symbolic summation, numeric evaluation, or other contexts. There's no mention of prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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