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 fails to describe any behavioral traits such as computational complexity, domain restrictions (e.g., valid inputs for the zeta function), return format, or error handling. The description is purely declarative without operational context.

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 ('Riemann zeta function.') but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks any structure or front-loaded information that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose or usage, making it ineffective despite its brevity.

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 complexity of a mathematical function tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (though an output schema exists, mitigating this slightly), domain considerations, or how it differs from related functions. For a tool with rich sibling context, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 parameter 's' documented as 'Expression'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid expressions or mathematical constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Riemann zeta function' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_zeta' without specifying what the tool does. It doesn't provide a clear verb-action (e.g., 'compute', 'evaluate') or distinguish this from sibling tools like sympy_gamma or sympy_dirichlet_eta, which are also special mathematical functions.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., sympy_gamma for the gamma function), leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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