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 states the tool 'analiza' (analyzes), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it makes API calls, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what format the analysis output takes. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 but has structural issues. The first sentence defines 'Choice Overload' conceptually rather than stating the tool's function upfront. The actual tool purpose ('Analiza código o componentes UI...') comes second. While not wasteful, it could be more front-loaded for immediate clarity.

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 with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and for which platforms, but doesn't address behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects) or output format. For an analysis tool with moderate complexity, it should provide more context about the analysis process or results.

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 (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'code' and 'component_description' interact or provide examples of valid 'context' values). 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: 'Analiza código o componentes UI según esta ley' (analyzes code or UI components according to this law). It specifies the resource (code/UI components) and the analytical framework (choice overload law). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_hicks_law' or 'analyze_cognitive_load' which also analyze UI principles, though the specific law focus provides some implicit 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 implied usage guidance by stating it analyzes 'CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA' (any platform) and listing examples like Web, iOS, Android. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_hicks_law' (which deals with decision time) or 'ux_full_audit' (comprehensive analysis). The context is clear but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.

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