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 a polynomial' implies a write operation but gives no details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or output format. It lacks context on what 'create' entails—whether it validates input, handles symbolic variables, or returns a structured object. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.

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 sentence with zero waste, making it appropriately concise. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it lacks necessary details for clarity. While front-loaded, it does not earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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 complexity of polynomial creation and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns or how it interacts with other sympy tools. With no annotations and minimal description, it leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and integration, despite the output schema covering return values.

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 'expr' and 'variable' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of valid expressions or variable usage. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to compensate with extra insights.

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 polynomial' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_poly' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'Create' and resource 'polynomial', but fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'sympy_factor' or 'sympy_expand' that also manipulate polynomials. The purpose remains vague about what kind of polynomial creation this performs.

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 for mathematical operations (e.g., 'sympy_factor', 'sympy_expand', 'sympy_simplify'), there is no indication of whether this is for constructing polynomials from expressions, converting to polynomial form, or other use cases. No prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned.

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