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 mentions the Zeigarnik Effect definition but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what the analysis outputs, whether it's read-only or mutative, performance characteristics, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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: a definition of the Zeigarnik Effect, the tool's purpose, and platform scope. It's front-loaded with the key purpose, though the first sentence is more educational than directly tool-focused, which slightly reduces 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. It lacks details on what the analysis returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral context needed for effective use. The sibling tools suggest this is part of a UX analysis suite, but the description doesn't leverage that context adequately.

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 an enum for 'platform'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying platform flexibility, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the tool analyzes code or UI components according to the Zeigarnik Effect law, with a specific verb ('Analiza') and resource ('código o componentes UI'). It distinguishes itself by focusing on this specific psychological principle, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that analyze other laws like Fitts Law or Hick's Law.

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, suggesting broad applicability across platforms. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ux_full_audit' or other law-specific analyzers, 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.