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 less than' gives no information about what the tool actually returns (though an output schema exists), whether it's a read-only operation, what happens with invalid inputs, or any performance characteristics. The description is too vague to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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, which could be seen as efficient. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than truly concise. There's no wasted language, but it fails to provide necessary context. The structure is simple but lacks the front-loaded clarity that would help an agent quickly understand the tool's purpose.

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 comparison tool with no annotations, 2 parameters with good schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. While the output schema may handle return values, the description doesn't explain what 'Create less than' means in the SymPy context, how it differs from other comparison tools, or what behavioral traits are important. For a tool in a complex mathematical library with many siblings, more context 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter names (lhs, rhs) and descriptions ('Left-hand side', 'Right-hand side'). The description 'Create less than' adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides—it implies the parameters represent the two sides of a comparison but doesn't elaborate on their format, constraints, or relationship. With 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 less than' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'sympy_lt' (which likely means 'SymPy less than'). It doesn't specify what resource is being created (a mathematical expression? a comparison object?) or what the tool actually does beyond the obvious. While it hints at creating a less-than comparison, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like sympy_ge, sympy_gt, or sympy_le.

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. There are numerous sibling tools for mathematical operations and comparisons (e.g., sympy_eq, sympy_ge, sympy_gt, sympy_le), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific less-than comparison tool is appropriate, what context it's used in, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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