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. 'Simplify' implies a transformation, but the description doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what kind of simplification occurs (algebraic, trigonometric identities), potential side effects, or what the output format looks like. For a mathematical transformation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and clear mathematical function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

The description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. With an output schema present (though not shown in the prompt), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a mathematical simplification tool with no annotations and many similar sibling tools, the description should provide more context about when to use it and what kind of simplification it performs.

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 the single parameter 'expr' documented as 'String trigonometric expression.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 verb ('simplify') and resource ('trigonometric expressions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'sympy_simplify' (general simplification) or 'sympy_expand_trig' (expansion rather than simplification), but the trigonometric focus provides some implicit differentiation.

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 many sibling tools including 'sympy_simplify' (general simplification), 'sympy_expand_trig' (trigonometric expansion), and 'sympy_ratsimp' (rational simplification), the agent receives no help in choosing between them for trigonometric expression manipulation.

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