UX Laws MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions analyzing code/components according to a specific UX law, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what the analysis outputs, whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics, or error handling. The description is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 reasonably concise with 3 sentences. The first introduces the UX principle, the second explains it briefly, and the third specifies the tool's scope. However, the second sentence about users not reading manuals feels more like background than essential tool information, and the description could be more front-loaded with the tool's 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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis produces, how results are formatted, or what constitutes a 'good' versus 'bad' analysis according to this principle. For a tool that presumably returns analytical insights, the description should provide more context about the expected output.

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 all 4 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool analyzes code or UI components according to the 'Paradox of the Active User' principle for any platform. It specifies the action ('analiza') and scope ('código o componentes UI'), but doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'analyze_aesthetic_usability' or 'analyze_cognitive_load' which also analyze UI/UX principles. The purpose is somewhat vague about what specific analysis it performs.

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 many sibling tools analyzing different UX laws/principles (e.g., analyze_fitts_law, analyze_hicks_law), there's no indication of when the 'Paradox of the Active User' analysis is appropriate versus other analytical tools. It mentions it works for 'ANY PLATFORM' but doesn't specify use cases or exclusions.

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