ux_list_laws

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it states what the tool does (list laws with optional filtering), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like: what format the list returns (array of names? objects with details?), whether there's pagination or limits, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: an emoji for visual recognition, a clear title in Spanish, and one explanatory sentence that covers the core functionality. Every element earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 low complexity (single optional parameter, list operation) and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. No output schema exists, so the description should ideally mention what the list returns (e.g., 'returns an array of law names with basic info'). Without annotations, it also misses behavioral context about the operation's safety and constraints.

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 the single parameter 'category' with its description and allowed values. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'opcionalmente filtradas por categoría' (optionally filtered by category), which reinforces the optional nature. With only one parameter and high schema coverage, baseline 3 would be appropriate, but the description provides slight additional context about the filtering purpose.

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 specific action ('Listar' - list) and resource ('Leyes de UX' - UX laws), with the optional filtering capability. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ux_get_law_info' (which gets detailed info about a specific law) and 'analyze_*' tools (which analyze specific UX principles rather than listing them all).

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 clear context about when to use this tool: to list all available UX laws with optional category filtering. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools (use 'ux_get_law_info' for detailed info on a specific law, use 'analyze_*' tools for analysis of specific principles).

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