Auditar resource FiveM

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the tool inspects and returns problems/suggestions, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or what the exact output format is. This leaves notable gaps.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage. The description provides only a high-level overview and does not explain return values, side effects, or parameter specifics. For an audit tool that inspects multiple resource elements, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand invocation consequences.

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 input schema has only one parameter (resourceDir) with no description coverage (0%). The description does not mention or elaborate on this parameter, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspeciona') and clearly scopes the action to manifest, NUI files, and client-side callbacks with an explicit outcome ('apontar problemas e sugestões'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fivem.resource_inspect by focusing on auditing rather than generic inspection.

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 implies usage when an audit of a FiveM resource is needed but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not mention when to prefer this over fivem.resource_inspect or other siblings, so it falls short of explicit usage guidance.

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