mma-mcp

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. While it mentions the tool evaluates expressions and returns PNG images, it lacks critical behavioral details such as error handling, performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid expressions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, provides usage guidelines, then clearly documents the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it easy to scan 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (evaluating Wolfram Language expressions with visual output), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides adequate basics but lacks completeness. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics well, but misses important behavioral context about how the tool operates, what errors might occur, and what the PNG output contains.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'expression: A valid Wolfram Language expression string.' This clarifies what type of input is expected beyond the schema's basic 'string' type. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, the description adequately compensates by specifying the parameter's purpose and format requirements.

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: 'Evaluate a Wolfram Language expression and return the result as a PNG image.' It specifies both the action (evaluate) and the resource (Wolfram Language expression), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'evaluate' by mentioning the visual output format (PNG image).

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 clear context on when to use this tool: 'Useful for Plot, Graphics, or any expression with visual output.' This gives guidance on appropriate use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (like the sibling 'evaluate' tool for non-visual results), which prevents a perfect score.

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