analyze_proximity_law

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states what the tool does (analysis) but doesn't disclose whether it's read-only, what output format to expect, whether it makes API calls, or any performance characteristics. The description adds the platform scope but lacks critical behavioral context for an analysis tool.

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 states the law definition, the second specifies the tool's function, and the third adds platform scope. While efficient, the law definition could be considered extraneous since sibling tools suggest this is part of a UX law analysis suite where law definitions might be redundant.

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 an analysis tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the analysis produces, how results are structured, or what constitutes good versus poor proximity. The platform list adds context but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output information critical for proper tool invocation.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It mentions platform generality but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or relationships. 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: analyzing code or UI components according to the Law of Proximity. It specifies the action ('analiza') and target ('código o componentes UI'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_common_region_law or analyze_similarity_law that also analyze design principles. The mention of 'CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA' adds scope but not sibling distinction.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like analyze_common_region_law or analyze_similarity_law, nor does it explain when proximity analysis is appropriate versus other UX laws. The platform list implies broad applicability but offers no selection criteria.

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