mcp-sympy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Logical AND.' does not explain what the tool does beyond the basic operation, such as how it handles input expressions, what the output entails, or any constraints like error handling or performance. It lacks details on return values, side effects, or any behavioral context, making it insufficient for informed use.

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 'Logical AND.' is extremely concise, consisting of just two words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. Every word serves a purpose, even if minimal, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 (a logical operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as usage examples, differentiation from siblings, and behavioral details, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation despite the structured support.

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 'args' parameter documented as 'Comma-separated expressions'. The description does not add any semantic details beyond this, such as examples or format specifics. Since the schema provides adequate parameter information, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates for gaps nor enhances understanding.

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 'Logical AND.' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_And' without adding meaningful context. It does not specify what resource or expressions it operates on, nor does it distinguish this tool from its sibling logical tools like 'sympy_Or', 'sympy_Nand', 'sympy_Nor', 'sympy_Not', or 'sympy_Xor', which are all listed. This lack of differentiation and specificity makes the purpose vague.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and fails to reference sibling tools like 'sympy_Or' or 'sympy_Not' for logical operations. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction on appropriate application.

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