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 mentions the Peak-End Rule concept but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what the analysis outputs, whether it's read-only or mutative, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or error handling. The description is purely conceptual without operational details.

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: an emoji/rule name, a conceptual explanation, and a usage statement. It's front-loaded with the rule name and concept, but includes some redundancy (e.g., listing platforms after stating 'CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA'). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. It explains the UX principle but lacks details on what the analysis returns, how results are structured, or practical usage scenarios. For a tool that presumably produces analysis output, this is a significant gap.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. It mentions platforms generally but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 Peak-End Rule for any platform. It specifies the action ('analiza') and target ('código o componentes UI'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_aesthetic_usability' or 'analyze_cognitive_load' which likely analyze different UX 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' and lists examples, providing some context about when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'ux_full_audit' or other analysis tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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