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 mentions 'solveset' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what types of equations it supports, whether it returns symbolic or numeric solutions, error handling, or performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool (solving implies computation).

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 zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.

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 equation solving, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on equation types, solution formats, and differentiation from siblings, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection.

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 fully documents the 'equation' and 'variable' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of equation formats or default variable behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('solve') and resource ('an equation'), but it's vague about the method ('using solveset') without explaining what solveset is or how it differs from other solving methods. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'sympy_solve' or 'sympy_nsolve', which are clear alternatives for equation solving.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sympy_solve' or 'sympy_nsolve' is provided. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as the type of equations it handles or when solveset is preferred over other methods, leaving usage unclear.

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