mcp-sympy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions replacement but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, or how errors are handled. The format hint adds minimal context, but key behavioral traits like side effects, return format, or error conditions are omitted, making it inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 that front-loads the core action and includes a format hint. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the essential information within minimal space, earning a high score for brevity and structure.

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 symbolic replacement, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, error handling, and differentiation from siblings, making it insufficient for effective tool invocation in this context.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds meaning by explaining the format of 'old_new' as 'old,new', which clarifies one parameter's semantics. However, it doesn't address 'expr' or provide details on syntax, examples, or constraints, leaving significant gaps for both parameters.

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 states the action ('Replace') and target ('in expression'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what mathematical or symbolic replacement it performs, making it vague compared to siblings like 'sympy_subs' or 'sympy_xreplace' that might offer similar functionality. The format hint adds some specificity but doesn't fully distinguish the tool's unique role.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sympy_subs' or 'sympy_xreplace' from the sibling list. The format hint ('old,new') implies a specific input structure but doesn't explain context or prerequisites for use, leaving the agent with no usage differentiation.

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