Detectar framework do resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the heuristic nature of the detection, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what the return value is, or any limitations of the heuristic. Some behavioral context is added, but gaps remain.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and purpose. It is concise and directly to the point, with no unnecessary information.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core purpose but omits details about the parameter and the return value. Since there is no output schema, the description should state what the tool returns, but it does not. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to deduce.

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 schema has one parameter, resourceDir, with no description, and the description itself does not explain what the parameter should contain. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it only refers to 'the resource' implicitly. The agent must infer that resourceDir is the path to the resource directory.

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 performs heuristic detection to identify whether a resource uses qb-core, esx, or standalone. This is a specific verb and outcome, distinguishing it from sibling tools like resource_inspect or resource_audit, which have different purposes.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool (when you need to know a resource's framework), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with alternatives. The description provides a clear use case but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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