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 a triangle' implies a construction/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this creates a symbolic representation, a geometric object, what happens with invalid inputs, or what the output format will be. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 with just two words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, it contains no redundant or unnecessary information and is perfectly front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and sibling tools that include other geometric primitives, the description is severely inadequate. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to explain what kind of triangle object is created, how it relates to other sympy geometric tools, or what the tool actually accomplishes beyond the basic verb.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (point1, point2, point3) documented in the schema as vertex coordinates. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but unhelpful 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 'Create a triangle.' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'sympy_Triangle'. It provides no additional information about what type of triangle is being created, what the tool actually does with the triangle, or how it differs from other geometric tools like sympy_Circle, sympy_Point, or sympy_Polygon 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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools including other geometric primitives (sympy_Circle, sympy_Point, sympy_Polygon), there is no indication of when a triangle would be preferred over a polygon or how this tool relates to other sympy operations.

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