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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Create Rational' gives no information about what the tool actually returns, whether it validates inputs, what happens with invalid inputs, or any side effects. For a tool with two required parameters and an output schema, this complete lack of behavioral information 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 maximally concise with just two words. While this conciseness comes at the expense of clarity and completeness, the description itself contains no wasted words or unnecessary structure. Every word (both of them) directly relates to the tool's purpose.

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 this is a mathematical tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameters mean, or what to expect as output. The existence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the complete lack of functional explanation.

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%, meaning neither parameter (num, den) has any documentation in the schema. The description 'Create Rational' provides zero information about what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or their relationship. For a tool with two required parameters, this represents a complete failure to explain parameter semantics.

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 Rational' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sympy_rational' without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what a 'Rational' is in the SymPy context or what this operation actually does. While it implies creating something, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool from other mathematical creation tools in the sibling list.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many mathematical operation tools in the sibling list (like sympy_integer, sympy_float, sympy_simplify), but the description offers no context about when creating a rational number is appropriate versus other numeric representations or operations.

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