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' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is a pure function, if it has side effects, what the output looks like, or any error conditions. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits needed for safe invocation.

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 2D point.') that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters and clear schema documentation.

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 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and many sibling tools, it lacks context on usage scenarios and behavioral traits. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more guidance would improve completeness.

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 clear documentation for 'x' and 'y' as coordinates. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as coordinate types or units. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 2D point' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('2D point'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sympy_Point3D' or explain why one would use a 2D point versus other geometric tools in the sibling list.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'sympy_Point3D', 'sympy_Circle', 'sympy_Line'), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or comparisons to help an agent select this tool correctly.

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