get_ux_taxonomy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses 'static', 'cached', and 'small JSON', which imply a read-only, cheap operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects or permission requirements, and the meaning of 'criticality hints' is left undefined.

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 one concise sentence, front-loading the core concept ('Static UX/criticality hints') and adding useful modifiers ('cached', 'small JSON'). Every word contributes, and there is no fluff.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (hints), its usage (planning), and its nature (static, cached, small). It could be more detailed about the JSON structure, but it is adequate for such a simple utility.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details.

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 identifies the resource as 'UX/criticality hints' with the purpose 'for planning', which is specific and not a tautology. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting 'static' and 'cached', but does not elaborate on the exact meaning of the hints.

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 phrase 'for planning' gives a clear context of when to use this tool, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no comparison to sibling tools like get_process_insights, leaving the agent to infer the intended use.

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