mcp-sympy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description for behavioral disclosure. The description 'Symbolic power.' fails to convey any behavioral traits—it doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only computation, what mathematical domain it operates in, potential side effects, error conditions, or output characteristics. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and an output schema.

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?

While extremely brief ('Symbolic power.'), this is not true conciseness but severe under-specification. The description lacks any structure or front-loading of key information—it's a fragment that doesn't earn its place by providing value. Efficient brevity requires conveying essential meaning, which this fails to do.

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, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which the description doesn't reference), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, or behavior, failing to compensate for the lack of structured information. This leaves the agent unable to effectively use the tool.

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 0%, meaning parameters 'expr' and 'n' are completely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters represent (e.g., 'expr' as a mathematical expression and 'n' as an exponent), their expected formats, or examples of usage. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter meanings and requirements.

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 'Symbolic power.' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., compute symbolic exponentiation, raise expressions to symbolic powers, or handle power operations in symbolic algebra). While it mentions 'power,' it lacks the specific verb+resource combination needed for clear understanding.

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 numerous sibling tools like sympy_powsimp, sympy_sqrt, and sympy_exp that might handle related mathematical operations, there's no indication of this tool's specific context, prerequisites, or differentiation from similar functions. This leaves the agent without any usage direction.

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