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. It states 'Create inequality', implying a write operation that generates a symbolic expression, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns a symbolic object, requires specific input formats, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single sentence 'Create inequality (not equal).' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost 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 (simple creation with 2 parameters), high schema coverage (100%), and presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with no guidance on usage or behavioral context, it lacks completeness for effective agent invocation, especially in a server with many sibling tools.

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 parameters 'lhs' and 'rhs' documented as 'Left-hand side' and 'Right-hand side'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what these sides represent (e.g., mathematical expressions) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'Create inequality (not equal)' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('inequality'), but it's vague about what type of inequality it creates. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sympy_eq' (equality) by specifying 'not equal', but doesn't clarify if this is a symbolic expression constructor or something else.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare with sibling tools like 'sympy_eq' for equality or other inequality tools (e.g., 'sympy_lt', 'sympy_gt'), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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