analyze_hicks_law

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions analysis based on Hick's Law but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what the analysis outputs, whether it's read-only or modifies data, performance characteristics, or error handling. The description is too vague about the tool's actual behavior beyond the high-level concept.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the law definition and immediately stating the tool's function. It uses two sentences efficiently, with no wasted words, though the platform list could be more streamlined given the schema already enumerates them.

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 of analyzing UI components across platforms with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the analysis entails, output format, error cases, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output information, the description should provide more contextual guidance.

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%, providing clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only mentions platform applicability without detailing parameter interactions or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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 action (analyze) and mentions applicability to multiple platforms, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_fitts_law' or 'analyze_cognitive_load' beyond the law name.

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 UI components for 'CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA' (any platform) and lists examples, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ux_full_audit' or 'analyze_choice_overload'. The platform enumeration in the schema suggests broad applicability but lacks comparative advice.

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