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 Integer' suggests a write operation but reveals nothing about permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what the output looks like. It doesn't mention whether this creates a symbolic integer object, validates input, or has any computational behavior beyond basic creation.

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 at just two words. While this leads to under-specification in other dimensions, from a pure conciseness perspective, it's front-loaded with zero wasted words. Every word ('Create Integer') directly relates to the tool's apparent function.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a single required parameter, the description is completely inadequate. While an output schema exists (which might help with return values), the description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters work, or any behavioral aspects. This leaves the agent with minimal guidance for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 1 parameter 'n' with 0% description coverage (no schema descriptions). The tool description provides no information about what 'n' represents, its expected format, or constraints. For a single required parameter with no schema documentation, the description fails to add any semantic meaning beyond what's already absent in the schema.

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 Integer' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'sympy_integer'. It doesn't specify what kind of integer is being created, from what input, or for what purpose. While it includes a verb ('Create'), it lacks specificity about the resource or context, making it only slightly better than a single-word description.

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 in the sympy family (like sympy_rational, sympy_float, sympy_symbol, etc.), there's no indication of when integer creation is appropriate versus other numeric or symbolic types. 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.