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. 'Logical NAND' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it evaluates expressions, returns symbolic results, handles edge cases, or what format the output takes. The description is essentially just a label with no operational information.

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?

While 'Logical NAND' is extremely concise (two words), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary information about the tool's purpose and usage. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide meaningful guidance beyond what's already in the tool name.

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 that this is a logical operation tool with no annotations, 1 parameter, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. While the output schema might explain return values, the description should still explain what the tool does, when to use it among many logical operation siblings, and basic behavioral context. 'Logical NAND' is insufficient for a tool in this 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 the 'args' parameter documented as 'Comma-separated expressions'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 NAND' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'sympy_Nand' without specifying what it does. It doesn't explain that this tool performs logical NAND operations on symbolic expressions, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like sympy_And, sympy_Or, sympy_Not, sympy_Nor, or sympy_Xor. A user or agent would need to infer the functionality from the name alone.

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. There are multiple logical operation siblings (sympy_And, sympy_Or, sympy_Not, sympy_Nor, sympy_Xor, sympy_Implies), but the description doesn't indicate that NAND is a specific logical connective, when it's appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other logical operations. This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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