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. 'Multiply two matrices' implies a computation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like: what format the matrices should be in, whether dimensions must be compatible, whether the operation is commutative, what happens with invalid input, or what the output looks like. For a mathematical operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 perfectly concise at just three words. Every word earns its place - 'Multiply' specifies the operation, 'two' indicates arity, and 'matrices' specifies the resource. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values) and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description is minimally complete. However, for a mathematical operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention dimension compatibility requirements or input format expectations to be fully helpful to an AI agent.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented as 'First matrix string' and 'Second matrix string'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the 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 'Multiply two matrices' clearly states the verb (multiply) and resource (matrices), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like sympy_matrix_add or sympy_symbolic_mul, which perform different matrix/expression 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the SymPy family (including sympy_matrix_add, sympy_symbolic_mul, sympy_dot, etc.), there's no indication of when matrix multiplication is appropriate versus other operations.

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