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 NOR' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it evaluates expressions, returns symbolic results, handles multiple arguments, or has any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 NOR' is extremely concise, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The two words don't provide enough information for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose or usage. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness, which this description fails to achieve.

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 should at minimum explain what the tool computes and what it returns. 'Logical NOR' fails to provide this basic context. While the output schema may document return values, the description doesn't help an agent understand when or why to use this specific logical operator.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with the 'args' parameter documented as 'Comma-separated expressions.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 NOR' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_Nor' without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., compute the logical NOR of expressions, return a Boolean result, or create a symbolic expression). While the name suggests it's related to symbolic logic operations, the description fails to provide a clear verb+resource statement.

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 many sibling tools for logical operations (sympy_And, sympy_Nand, sympy_Or, sympy_Not, sympy_Xor), but the description doesn't explain when NOR is appropriate, what distinguishes it from other logical operators, or any prerequisites for its use.

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