ux_checklist

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. It states the tool generates a checklist but doesn't reveal key traits: whether it's a read-only operation, what the output format is (e.g., list, structured data), if there are rate limits, or if it requires specific permissions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in two sentences. The first line ('✅ Checklist de UX por Plataforma') serves as a title-like summary, and the second sentence explains the action. There's no unnecessary information, making it efficient, though the emoji adds minor visual clutter without functional value.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters at a high level but lacks details on output behavior, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the generated checklist includes would improve completeness for effective agent 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?

The description mentions adaptation to 'component type' and 'platform', aligning with the two parameters in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents these parameters well (e.g., 'component_type' with examples, 'platform' with enum values). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline score of 3 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's purpose: 'Genera un checklist de verificación UX adaptado al tipo de componente Y plataforma específica' (Generates a UX verification checklist adapted to the component type AND specific platform). It specifies the verb 'genera' (generates) and resource 'checklist de verificación UX' (UX verification checklist), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ux_full_audit' or 'ux_compare_platforms', which might offer broader or comparative analyses.

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 context by mentioning adaptation to 'component type' and 'platform', suggesting it's for generating platform-specific UX checklists. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'ux_full_audit' for comprehensive audits or 'ux_compare_platforms' for cross-platform analysis). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.

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