get_ux_guidelines

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, but only states that the tool 'queries' rules; it does not say whether results are exhaustive, how multiple frameworks are combined, or what output is returned. There is no warning about side effects, permissions, or limits.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, with the framework list at the end. It is slightly long due to the enumeration, but each listed framework is useful search context, and there is no redundant 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?

The schema fully covers the two optional inputs, and the description names the knowledge base being queried, so calling the tool is straightforward. However, there is no output schema and the description never explains return shape or empty-result behavior, leaving an agent to guess at the response for a multi-framework query.

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?

Both parameters are already documented in the schema with descriptions and examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no extra meaning about topic or category beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Queries') and a resource ('UX Intelligence Rules'), then enumerates the covered frameworks, so an agent can tell this is a lookup/retrieval tool. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the named scope is enough to distinguish it from audit_ux_compliance and search_ui_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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never mentions alternatives or conditions for choosing get_ux_guidelines over audit_ux_compliance or search_ui_components. An agent must infer appropriate usage from the name and schema alone.

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