japan-ux-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool performs multiple transformations, shows before/after scores, and explains changes. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or whether it's idempotent. The description adds useful context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bullet-like list of specific transformations, ending with output behavior. Every sentence adds value with zero redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a complex transformation 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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does well by detailing the transformation scope and output behavior (scores and explanations). However, without an output schema, it doesn't fully describe the return format or structure. The description is reasonably complete but could benefit from more detail about the output.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by implicitly explaining how parameters relate to the transformation: 'markup' is the input to transform, 'context' determines keigo level and conventions, 'format' specifies output format, and 'preserve_styling' relates to CSS preservation. This provides meaningful context beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 transforms Western markup into Japan-ready markup with specific transformations listed (name field order, furigana addition, phone splitting, address restructuring, button translation, placeholder replacement). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on transformation rather than generation, scoring, or validation.

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 when needing to adapt Western markup for Japanese contexts, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like generate_jp_form or score_japan_readiness. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to sibling tools.

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