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. It states the tool 'checks' satisfiability, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as performance characteristics, error handling, or what the output indicates (e.g., returns True/False or a model). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured for its 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 the tool has an output schema (which likely defines the return value), the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and a single parameter, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple check operation. It could be more complete by specifying the domain (e.g., Boolean logic) or typical usage, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 'expr' documented as a 'Boolean expression'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only restates 'expression' without further clarification. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Check if expression is satisfiable' states a clear purpose (checking satisfiability) but is vague about what type of expression and what satisfiability means in this context. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on satisfiability rather than other mathematical operations, but lacks specificity about the domain (e.g., Boolean logic).

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. Given the many sibling tools for mathematical operations (e.g., sympy_solve, sympy_simplify), the description does not indicate whether this is for Boolean expressions specifically or other types, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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