analyze_jakobs_law

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral disclosure. It doesn't describe what the analysis returns, whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics, or error handling. The description only states what the tool does conceptually, not how it behaves operationally.

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. The first explains Jakob's Law, the second states the tool's purpose, and the third specifies platform scope. Each sentence earns its place, though the first sentence could be considered background rather than direct tool description.

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?

For a 4-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns, what format results come in, or what constitutes a successful versus problematic analysis. The conceptual explanation of Jakob's Law doesn't compensate for missing operational details.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema. It mentions analyzing code/components for any platform, which aligns with the schema parameters but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how parameters interact or their significance.

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 Jakob's Law for any platform, providing a specific verb ('analiza') and resource ('código o componentes UI'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Jakob's Law specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other analysis tools in the list.

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 'para CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA' and listing examples, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ux_full_audit or other analyze_* tools. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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