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. 'Create a circle' implies a write operation that generates a new object, but it doesn't specify what happens (e.g., returns a symbolic circle object, stores it in a session, requires specific inputs). It lacks details on permissions, side effects, or output format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with a single sentence 'Create a circle.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's action.

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 simplicity (2 required parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks guidance on usage, behavioral context, and integration with sibling tools. The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be explained, but the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or provide sufficient operational context.

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 parameters 'center' and 'radius' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Create a circle' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_Circle' without adding meaningful context. While it indicates the action (create) and resource (circle), it doesn't specify what kind of circle (e.g., geometric object, symbolic representation) or distinguish it from sibling tools like sympy_Point or sympy_Triangle. This minimal statement provides only basic orientation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., mathematical modeling, geometry), or comparisons to sibling tools like sympy_Polygon or sympy_Line. Without any usage instructions, an AI agent must infer applicability solely from the tool name and parameters.

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