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. It states the tool combines terms into a single fraction, implying a transformation of mathematical expressions, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it handles symbolic or numeric input, error conditions, performance characteristics, or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence: 'Combine terms into a single fraction.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (low, with one parameter), schema coverage (100%), and the presence of an output schema (true), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. With an output schema, it need not explain return values, but the absence of annotations means more context could be beneficial. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'expr' documented as 'String expression.' The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it does not elaborate on the format, constraints, or examples of valid expressions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, reflecting adequate but no extra parameter semantics from 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Combine terms into a single fraction,' which is a specific verb ('Combine') and resource ('terms into a single fraction'). It distinguishes from many siblings (e.g., 'sympy_apart' for partial fractions, 'sympy_simplify' for general simplification), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is not tautological with the name 'sympy_together' and is not misleading.

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 specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'sympy_simplify', 'sympy_ratsimp', 'sympy_cancel'), the lack of usage guidelines leaves the agent to infer based on the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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