analyze_aesthetic_usability

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 what the tool does (analysis based on a specific UX law) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or has side effects, what format the analysis output takes, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 three sentences. The first introduces the law concept, the second states the tool's action, and the third specifies platform scope. While efficient, the first sentence about the law effect could be considered slightly extraneous if the tool name already implies it, but it provides useful context.

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 (analysis tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis produces, how results are formatted, whether it provides recommendations, or what happens with incomplete inputs. For a tool that presumably returns analysis results, the lack of output information is a significant gap.

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. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions analyzing 'código o componentes UI' which aligns with the 'code' and 'component_description' parameters, but provides no additional semantic context. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing code or UI components according to the Aesthetic-Usability Effect law. It specifies the verb 'analiza' (analyzes) and the resource 'código o componentes UI' (code or UI components), and mentions the specific law being applied. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that also analyze different UX laws, though the law name itself provides some 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 some implied usage context by stating it analyzes 'CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA' (ANY PLATFORM) and listing examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like other law-specific analysis tools or broader audit tools (e.g., ux_full_audit). The platform scope is helpful but doesn't address tool selection among siblings.

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