UX Laws MCP

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 states the tool 'analiza' (analyzes), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies input, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 introduces Occam's Razor, states the tool's purpose, and specifies platform scope. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the first sentence is a philosophical statement that doesn't directly aid tool selection, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis entails, what criteria are used, what the output looks like, or how results should be interpreted. For a tool performing analysis across multiple platforms, more contextual information is needed to guide effective use.

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 adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'código o componentes UI' and 'CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA', which loosely maps to the 'code' and 'platform' parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details. 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 verb ('analiza') and resource ('código o componentes UI'), and mentions Occam's Razor principle. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_fitts_law' or 'analyze_hicks_law' beyond mentioning the specific 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 provides some implied usage context: it mentions analyzing code/UI components 'para CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA' (for any platform) and lists examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ux_full_audit' or 'analyze_cognitive_load', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but not explicit.

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