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 an interval.' implies a construction operation but reveals nothing about what happens: whether this creates a symbolic interval object, whether it validates inputs, what happens with invalid parameters, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is minimal information.

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 maximally concise - a single three-word sentence. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of informativeness, as a standalone assessment of brevity and structure, it's perfect.

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 this is a mathematical tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't provide enough context about what the tool actually does, when to use it, or what it returns. For a tool in a complex mathematical library, more explanation is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (start, end, left_open, right_open) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'open' means mathematically, what format 'start' and 'end' should be in, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 an interval.' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'sympy_interval'. It doesn't specify what kind of interval (mathematical, symbolic, numeric) or what domain it operates in, nor does it distinguish this tool from its many siblings in the SymPy server. While the name suggests a mathematical interval, the description adds no clarifying information.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools (like sympy_Range, sympy_finiteset, or other set/interval-related tools in the list). The agent receives no help in selecting this tool appropriately.

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