mcp-sympy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Logical OR' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it evaluates expressions, returns symbolic results, handles errors, or requires specific input formats. It fails to describe any operational characteristics beyond the basic logical concept.

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 maximally concise at just two words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, within the scoring framework it earns a 5 because every word serves a purpose and there's zero wasted text. The structure is as simple as possible.

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, 100% schema coverage for one parameter, and an output schema exists, the description is inadequate. 'Logical OR' doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it processes the comma-separated expressions, or what makes it distinct from other logical operations in the sibling set. The existence of an output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for more descriptive 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'args' parameter as 'Comma-separated expressions'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 OR' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_Or' without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what resource it operates on (e.g., symbolic expressions) or what the tool actually does beyond the basic logical concept. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'sympy_And' by name, the description itself provides no additional differentiation.

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 any context, prerequisites, or sibling tools (like 'sympy_And' or 'sympy_Xor') that might be relevant for logical operations. There's complete absence of usage instructions.

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