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. 'Create greater than or equal' implies it constructs a symbolic inequality, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns a symbolic expression, if it evaluates numerically, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to understand its behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. There's no unnecessary verbosity, earning a high score for 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 the tool's low complexity (two simple parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the mathematical domain (SymPy symbolic algebra) and doesn't explain the tool's role among siblings, leaving gaps in completeness despite the structured support.

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 parameters 'lhs' and 'rhs' clearly documented as 'Left-hand side' and 'Right-hand side'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid inputs (e.g., strings representing mathematical expressions). Since schema coverage is high, 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 greater than or equal' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'sympy_ge' (which likely stands for 'greater than or equal'). It doesn't specify what resource or mathematical object it operates on, nor does it distinguish from siblings like 'sympy_gt' (greater than) or 'sympy_le' (less than or equal). The purpose is vague beyond the name.

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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'sympy_gt', 'sympy_le', or 'sympy_eq' for comparison operations, nor does it provide any context about mathematical expressions or symbolic algebra where such tools are applied. The description offers zero usage instructions.

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