ux_full_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions analyzing against 'TODAS las 30 leyes de UX' (all 30 UX laws), which suggests comprehensive evaluation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only analysis, what format the output takes, computational requirements, or potential limitations. The description adds minimal behavioral 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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence (with emoji) states the core purpose, and the second adds important context about platform adaptation. No wasted words, though the emoji could be considered decorative rather than functional.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis produces, how results are structured, whether it's a simple checklist or detailed report, or how it differs from individual law analysis tools. For a comprehensive analysis tool with complex input options, more context is needed.

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. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions platform adaptation but doesn't explain how parameters like 'focus_areas' or 'component_description' affect the analysis. 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: 'Analiza un componente o interfaz contra TODAS las 30 leyes de UX' (analyzes a component or interface against all 30 UX laws). It specifies the verb (analyzes) and resource (component/interface), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ux_checklist' or 'ux_compare_platforms' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 'adaptado a la plataforma específica' (adapted to the specific platform) and listing many platform options, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analysis tools (e.g., 'analyze_fitts_law', 'analyze_hicks_law'). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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