UX Laws MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'shows how to implement' for comparison, implying a read-only informational output, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data or examples, or if it's a simulation vs. real implementation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 concise with two sentences (including an emoji for visual emphasis). The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second elaborates slightly. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be more front-loaded by integrating the comparison aspect into the initial statement.

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 minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks context on output format, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must guess at the return value and operational details, making this incomplete for confident 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 both parameters ('law_id' and 'platforms') with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain format constraints, provide examples of valid law IDs, or clarify platform naming conventions. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Muestra cómo implementar una ley de UX en diferentes plataformas para comparación' (Shows how to implement a UX law on different platforms for comparison). It uses specific verbs ('implementar', 'comparar') and identifies the resource ('ley de UX', 'plataformas'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ux_get_law_info' or 'ux_list_platforms' that might provide related information.

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 prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'ux_get_law_info' (which might provide law details) or 'ux_list_platforms' (which might list available platforms). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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