UX Laws MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'analiza' (analyzes) but doesn't describe what the analysis produces, whether it's a report, score, recommendations, or just validation. It doesn't mention if the tool makes changes to code, provides explanations, or has any limitations. The description quotes Postel's Law but doesn't explain how this translates to tool behavior.

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 reasonably concise with three sentences. The first presents Postel's Law in Spanish, the second states the tool's purpose, and the third specifies platform scope. While efficient, the middle sentence could be more specific about the analysis output. No wasted words, but could be more front-loaded with actionable information.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what the analysis produces, what format results come in, whether there are limitations to the analysis, or what constitutes a successful versus problematic analysis. The tool appears to perform complex UI/code analysis across multiple platforms, but the description provides minimal operational context.

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 with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of valid inputs, or clarify how parameters interact. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the 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 states the tool 'analiza código o componentes UI según esta ley' (analyzes code or UI components according to this law), which provides a general purpose. However, it's vague about what specific analysis is performed - it doesn't specify whether it identifies violations, suggests improvements, or provides compliance scores. It mentions 'CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA' (any platform) but doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools that also analyze various laws/principles for UI/UX.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools analyzing different laws/principles (Fitts' Law, Hick's Law, Jakob's Law, etc.), there's no indication of when Postel's Law analysis is appropriate versus other analytical tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or what problems this tool addresses specifically.

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