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 explains what the tool does (analyzes based on the Law of Common Region) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, what the output format might be, any rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 sized with three sentences: it names the law, explains the principle, and specifies the tool's scope. It's front-loaded with the law name and purpose, though the second sentence is more explanatory than directive. There's minimal waste, but it could be slightly more focused on tool usage.

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 provides adequate context about what the tool does and its platform scope. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and output, making it minimally complete but with clear gaps for a tool that performs analysis without structured output documentation.

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 mentions analyzing code or UI components for any platform, which aligns with the 'code' and 'platform' parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 analyzes code or UI components according to the Law of Common Region for any platform. It specifies the verb 'analiza' (analyzes) and the resource 'código o componentes UI' (code or UI components), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_proximity_law or analyze_similarity_law, which likely analyze different Gestalt principles.

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 by stating it analyzes 'CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA' (ANY PLATFORM) and lists examples, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this specific law versus alternatives like analyze_proximity_law or analyze_similarity_law. It gives context about platform applicability but lacks when-not scenarios or clear alternatives.

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