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. 'Create equality' suggests a write operation that generates a symbolic equation, but it doesn't disclose what happens (e.g., whether it returns a symbolic object, stores it somewhere, or validates inputs). There's no mention of error conditions, performance characteristics, or what the tool actually produces beyond the vague 'create' 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 extremely concise ('Create equality') but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded (only one phrase), that single phrase doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful guidance. It's not verbose, but it's also not helpful in its conciseness.

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 that there's an output schema (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a symbolic mathematics tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'creating equality' means in the SymPy context. The description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's role among many sibling tools.

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 both parameters (lhs and rhs) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 equality' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'sympy_eq' without providing meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of equality is being created (mathematical equation, symbolic expression), what resources are involved, or how this differs from sibling tools like sympy_ge (greater or equal) or sympy_ne (not equal). The purpose remains vague and indistinguishable from related tools.

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 numerous sibling tools in the SymPy ecosystem (like sympy_solve, sympy_simplify, sympy_And, etc.), there's no indication of when creating an equality is appropriate versus using other symbolic manipulation tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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