analyze_pragnanz_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 of behavioral disclosure. The description explains what the law is ('Las personas percibirán...') and states it analyzes code/components, but it doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: what the analysis outputs (e.g., suggestions, scores, issues), whether it's read-only or mutating, any rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 and front-loaded: it starts with the law definition, then states the tool's action, and ends with platform scope. There's minimal waste, though the law explanation could be seen as slightly verbose for a tool description. It's efficient overall, with clear structure in two sentences.

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 (analysis tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context: what the analysis returns (no output schema), behavioral details (e.g., is it read-only?), and how to interpret results. The platform scope is helpful, but without annotations or output schema, the description doesn't provide enough information for 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 (code, component_description, platform, context) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide examples, or clarify usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 clear verb ('analiza') and resource ('código o componentes UI'). However, it doesn't specifically differentiate this tool from its many sibling analysis tools (like analyze_fitts_law, analyze_hicks_law, etc.) beyond mentioning the specific law (Prägnanz). The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 mentions 'CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA' (any platform) and lists examples like Web, iOS, Android, etc., which gives some context about when to use it. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many other analysis tools (e.g., vs. analyze_aesthetic_usability or analyze_cognitive_load), no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The guidance is minimal and implied rather than explicit.

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