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' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't clarify if this is a pure function (no side effects), what permissions might be needed, or any performance considerations. It lacks details on error handling, return format, or whether the matrix is mutable.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('Create a matrix of ones.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core functionality without 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?

For a simple matrix creation tool with a rich input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete. It states what the tool does, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations. The output schema likely handles return value documentation, reducing the burden on the description.

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 documentation for 'rows' and 'cols' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the mathematical significance of rows/columns or default behavior). Given the 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 a matrix of ones' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('matrix of ones'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sympy_zeros' (which creates a matrix of zeros) or 'sympy_eye' (which creates an identity matrix), though the distinction is implied by the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'sympy_zeros' for zeros matrices or 'sympy_eye' for identity matrices, nor does it specify use cases or prerequisites for creating a ones matrix.

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