ui-ux-pro-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by detailing what the tool returns (Category, Guideline, Description, Do/Don't, Code Examples, Severity, Docs URL) and providing query examples. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, but covers the core functionality comprehensively.

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 perfectly structured with clear sections (purpose, when to use, query tips, returns, examples), each earning its place. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, uses bullet-like formatting for readability, and contains zero wasted words while being comprehensive.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention of error cases or what happens when no results are found, but otherwise it's highly complete given the context.

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 three parameters well. The description adds value through 'QUERY TIPS' that clarifies how to structure the query parameter and 'EXAMPLES' that show parameter usage, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 for framework-specific guidelines, listing all 12 supported frameworks explicitly. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'framework-specific guidelines' rather than general patterns, components, or platforms covered by other tools like search_patterns or search_components.

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 a dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section that explicitly states 'Framework-specific patterns, component best practices, state management.' It also provides 'QUERY TIPS' instructing to include framework name AND topic, giving clear guidance on when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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