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 XOR' gives no information about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be needed, error conditions, or what the output looks like. It fails to describe any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation name.

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 technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary context and doesn't use its limited space efficiently to convey meaningful information about the tool's purpose or usage.

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 helps), no annotations, and a simple parameter structure, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what XOR operation means in this context, what types of expressions are supported, or how results are returned. For a logical operation tool among many similar siblings, more context is needed.

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 the 'args' parameter documented as 'Comma-separated expressions'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 'Logical XOR' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what it does. It doesn't indicate this performs XOR operation on expressions or returns a result, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like sympy_And, sympy_Or, sympy_Nand, or sympy_Nor that handle other logical operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling logical operation tools, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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