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. 'LU decomposition' doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, error conditions, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a mathematical computation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 two words, with no wasted text. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail.

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's complexity (mathematical decomposition), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what LU decomposition is, how to use it, or what to expect, relying solely on the output schema for return values. For a tool with one parameter and computational nature, 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description 'LU decomposition' adds no meaning about the 'matrix' parameter: it doesn't explain the expected format (e.g., string representation of a matrix), constraints, or examples. With 1 undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate.

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 'LU decomposition' states the mathematical operation but is vague about what it does. It mentions the verb 'decomposition' and implies the resource is a matrix, but doesn't specify what LU decomposition is or what it produces. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like sympy_matrix_determinant or sympy_matrix_inverse, which are also matrix operations.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like sympy_matrix_determinant or sympy_matrix_inverse. The description offers no usage instructions.

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