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 greater than' vaguely suggests a construction or comparison operation but doesn't specify whether it returns a boolean, an expression, or another object; whether it has side effects; or any performance or error-handling traits. It lacks details on mathematical domain, symbolic vs. numeric evaluation, or output format.

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 with just three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise, as it lacks necessary detail for a tool with no annotations and many siblings. Every word earns its place, but more content is needed for completeness.

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 complexity of mathematical tools, no annotations, and rich sibling context, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which mitigates the need to explain return values), the description fails to clarify the tool's role among many alternatives, its behavioral traits, or usage scenarios. For a comparison/creation tool in a symbolic math library, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 clear parameter names (lhs, rhs) and brief descriptions ('Left-hand side', 'Right-hand side'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as expected data types (e.g., symbolic expressions, numbers) or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'sympy_gt' (which implies 'greater than'). It doesn't specify what resource or mathematical object is being created, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like sympy_lt (less than) or sympy_ge (greater than or equal). The description lacks a clear verb+resource combination.

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 mathematical comparisons and operations (e.g., sympy_lt, sympy_le, sympy_eq, sympy_ne), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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