mcp-sympy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Range.' gives no insight into whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what it returns, its side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. It fails to describe any behavior beyond the tool name, leaving the agent with no understanding of how the tool functions.

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 the description is extremely brief ('Range.'), this is not effective conciseness but severe under-specification. A single word fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. The structure lacks any front-loaded clarity or organized details.

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 complexity (mathematical range operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which the description does not reference), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, how to use it, what inputs mean, or what to expect as output, failing to provide any contextual 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 2 parameters (start, stop) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description 'Range.' adds no meaning about what these parameters represent (e.g., start and stop values for a range, inclusive/exclusive bounds, data types). It does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters entirely unexplained.

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 'Range.' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without any meaningful elaboration. It fails to specify what the tool does (e.g., create a range object, generate a sequence, define an interval), what resource it operates on, or how it differs from sibling tools like sympy_interval or sympy_finiteset. This provides no actionable information for an AI agent.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., sympy_interval for continuous ranges or sympy_finiteset for discrete sets). Without such information, the agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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