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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't address whether this requires specific permissions, what happens with invalid inputs, whether the matrix is mutable, or any performance characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.

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 simplicity (creating a matrix with two straightforward parameters), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus sibling matrix creation tools, which is a notable gap 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('rows' and 'cols') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 a zero matrix' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('zero matrix'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sympy_ones' (which creates a ones matrix) or 'sympy_eye' (which creates an identity matrix), missing explicit sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'sympy_ones' and 'sympy_eye' that create different types of matrices, there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this specific zero matrix creation tool.

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