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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Tangent function' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only computation, what format the output takes, potential errors with invalid inputs, or mathematical domain restrictions. This is inadequate for a computational tool.

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 technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary information about the tool's purpose and usage, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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 that this is a mathematical computation tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't explain what the tool actually does, when to use it, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool in a large family of mathematical functions, more context is needed.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'expr' parameter documented as 'Expression (in radians)' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't add value.

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 'Tangent function' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_tan' without specifying what the tool does. It doesn't mention that this computes the tangent of a mathematical expression using the SymPy library, nor does it distinguish this from sibling trigonometric functions like sympy_sin or sympy_cos.

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 doesn't mention that this is for trigonometric calculations, when to prefer tangent over other functions, or any prerequisites like input being in radians. With many sibling tools available, this lack of context is problematic.

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