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. It states the action ('solve') but doesn't mention what type of solutions are returned (e.g., exact, numeric), error handling, performance characteristics, or any constraints (e.g., equation complexity). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's moderate complexity (solving equations), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but fails to provide context on usage, behavior, or differentiation from siblings, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance despite the structured support from schema fields.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('equation' as a string equation and 'variables' as comma-separated variables). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or format details, but the high schema coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb ('solve') and resource ('equation or system of equations'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from many siblings that perform other mathematical operations (e.g., sympy_simplify, sympy_integrate), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sympy_solveset or sympy_nsolve which also solve equations.

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_solveset or sympy_nsolve, which are also solving tools in the sibling list. The description lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, offering only a basic statement of function.

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