ui-ux-pro-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns (platform-specific patterns with cross-platform implementation code) and provides examples of search queries. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (description, when to use, returns, parameters, examples) and uses bullet points effectively. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise by integrating some sections more tightly.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about what it searches, when to use it, what it returns, and includes helpful examples. The main gap is the lack of output format details, but the description compensates well with the 'RETURNS' section explaining the content structure.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description lists parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 tool searches iOS Human Interface Guidelines or Android Material 3 design patterns, specifying both the resources (platform guidelines) and the scope (design patterns). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on platform-specific patterns rather than general design systems, components, or styles.

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 includes an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section that lists specific scenarios: iOS design patterns, SwiftUI style in Flutter, Material 3 patterns in React Native, and platform-specific UI/UX. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings like search_components or search_styles.

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