mcp-sympy

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers zero behavioral information. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only calculation, what format the output takes, whether it handles edge cases, or any computational characteristics. For a mathematical function with no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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. While it's under-specified in content, it wastes no words and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Despite having an output schema and good parameter documentation, the description fails to provide essential context. For a mathematical function among 100+ similar tools, it should explain what Euler's totient function computes (φ(n) = count of integers ≤ n that are coprime to n) and typical use cases. The current description is insufficient for an agent to understand when and why to use this specific function.

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 parameter 'n' documented as 'Positive integer.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 'Euler's totient function' restates the tool name 'sympy_totient' without specifying what the tool does. It doesn't provide a verb or action, making it a tautology that doesn't help distinguish this tool from its many mathematical function siblings in the sympy family.

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 100+ sibling tools for various mathematical operations, there's no indication of when Euler's totient function is appropriate versus other number theory functions like sympy_divisors or sympy_isprime.

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