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. The description only states 'Create less than or equal,' which implies a creation/write operation but doesn't specify what is being created (e.g., a symbolic expression object), how it behaves (e.g., returns a SymPy object), or any side effects. It lacks details on error handling, performance, or integration with other SymPy tools.

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 overly terse to the point of under-specification, missing necessary context for effective use. While there's no wasted text, the brevity compromises clarity, preventing a perfect score.

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 symbolic manipulation and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in SymPy, what it returns (though an output schema exists, the description doesn't hint at it), or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool with 2 parameters and no behavioral annotations, more context is needed to guide an AI agent effectively.

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 meaningful semantics beyond this—it doesn't explain what types of expressions are valid, provide examples, or clarify the mathematical context. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 less than or equal' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'sympy_le' (where 'le' likely stands for 'less than or equal'). It doesn't specify what resource is being created or what the inputs represent. While it hints at creating a mathematical inequality, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like sympy_lt, sympy_ge, or sympy_eq.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like sympy_lt (less than), sympy_ge (greater than or equal), or sympy_eq (equal), nor does it explain the context for creating inequality expressions in SymPy. There's no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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