UX Laws MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (analyze cognitive load) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only analysis or if it modifies anything, what the output format or structure might be, any rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences: it defines cognitive load, states the tool's action, and specifies the scope. It's front-loaded with the key purpose. However, the first sentence is more of a definition than a direct tool description, and the use of emojis and capitalization ('CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA') slightly reduces professionalism without adding 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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the analysis returns, how results are structured, any behavioral constraints, or error handling. For a tool that performs analysis across multiple platforms, users need more context about the output and limitations to use it effectively. The description alone is insufficient for informed 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying analysis of 'código o componentes UI' (which loosely relates to the 'code' and 'component_description' parameters) and 'CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA' (relating to the 'platform' parameter). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides minimal additional value here.

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 para CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA' (Analyzes code or UI components according to this law for ANY PLATFORM). It specifies the action (analyze), target (code/UI components), and scope (cognitive load law, all platforms). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_working_memory' or 'analyze_mental_model' which might also relate to cognitive aspects.

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 implies usage context by stating it analyzes 'código o componentes UI' for 'CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA,' suggesting it's for UI/UX analysis across platforms. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ux_full_audit' or other analysis tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The platform enumeration in the schema hints at applicability but isn't part of the description itself.

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