ux_get_law_info

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 retrieves information with platform-specific code patterns, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned information. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that directly state the tool's purpose and key feature (platform-specific code patterns). It uses an emoji and title-like formatting ('📚 Información de Ley UX por Plataforma'), which is slightly decorative but not wasteful. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and hints at output (information with code patterns), but without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits, return format, or error handling. This leaves room for improvement in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'law_id' (ID of the law with examples) and 'platform' (platform for specific patterns with an enum list). The description adds context by mentioning 'patrones de código específicos para la plataforma elegida' (specific code patterns for the chosen platform), which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already documents.

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: 'Obtiene información detallada sobre una ley de UX, con patrones de código específicos para la plataforma elegida' (Gets detailed information about a UX law, with specific code patterns for the chosen platform). It specifies the verb ('obtiene'), resource ('información de ley UX'), and scope ('por plataforma'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ux_list_laws' or 'analyze_[law_name]' tools, which appear to analyze rather than retrieve 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 sibling tools like 'ux_list_laws' (which might list laws) or 'analyze_[law_name]' tools (which might provide analysis rather than platform-specific code patterns), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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