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. 'Create' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as what format the output takes (though an output schema exists), whether this requires specific inputs, or any constraints like size limitations. It lacks context about the creation process 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (one parameter, 100% schema coverage, output schema provided), the description is complete enough for basic use. The output schema handles return values, and the parameter is well-documented. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context or usage guidance to enhance completeness for an AI agent.

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 the 'elements' parameter documented as 'Comma-separated diagonal elements'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or formatting details. With high schema coverage, the 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 diagonal matrix' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('diagonal matrix'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sympy_eye' (identity matrix) or 'sympy_ones' (matrix of ones), which could also create matrices but with different patterns.

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 for matrix creation (e.g., 'sympy_eye', 'sympy_ones', 'sympy_zeros', 'sympy_matrix'), there's no indication of when a diagonal matrix is appropriate versus other matrix types or creation methods.

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