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. It states the tool creates a polygon, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what happens with invalid points, if the polygon is mutable, or the output format. The mention of 'comma-separated points' adds minimal context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Create a polygon') and includes essential input details. Every word earns its place.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter format but lacks behavioral details and usage guidance, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a creation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the 'points' parameter should be 'comma-separated points', which clarifies the input format beyond the schema's string type. However, it doesn't detail the expected point format (e.g., coordinates, syntax), leaving gaps.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('a polygon'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like sympy_Circle, sympy_Triangle, or sympy_Point, which also create geometric shapes/objects, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 (e.g., sympy_Circle for circles, sympy_Triangle for triangles). It mentions the input format ('comma-separated points') but doesn't specify context or prerequisites for polygon creation.

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