japan-ux-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the tool's behavior: it audits forms, checks specific conventions, and returns a score with issues and fixes. It doesn't mention error handling, performance, or authentication needs, but for a validation tool, the disclosed behavior is reasonably comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific checks and output details in a single, efficient sentence. Every element (audit action, checks, return values) adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the tool's purpose, checks performed, and return format (score, issues, fixes, passed items). For a validation tool with 2 parameters, this is nearly complete, though it could mention error cases or performance considerations.

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 thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain HTML/JSX format requirements or context implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 specific action ('Audit an existing form against Japanese UX conventions') and enumerates the exact checks performed (name field order, furigana, phone format, postal code, keigo, character handling). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate_jp_form' (which creates forms) and 'score_japan_readiness' (which appears broader).

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 specifying 'Japanese UX conventions' and listing specific checks, suggesting it's for forms targeting Japanese users. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'score_japan_readiness' or 'suggest_keigo_level', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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