Inspecionar resource FiveM

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 states the tool returns data, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens if fxmanifest.lua is missing, whether the path must be absolute, or if any other side effects occur. The description is minimal and lacks detail about failure modes or constraints.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It is efficient and does not waste words. While very short, it earns a 4 for being appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could benefit from a bit more detail.

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 its simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the parameter semantics, usage context, or edge cases. The lack of parameter documentation and any behavioral detail makes it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool, especially with sibling tools present.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation of the resourceDir parameter. It is unclear whether resourceDir expects an absolute path, a relative path, or a resource name. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the parameter meaning ambiguous.

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 what the tool does: analyzes fxmanifest.lua and returns client scripts, server scripts, and ui_page. It is specific about the verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fs.list or fivem.resource_audit by specifying the output types. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with fivem.resource_audit, which may have overlapping capabilities.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you need to inspect a FiveM resource's scripts and UI page by analyzing its fxmanifest.lua. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, but for a simple inspection tool the context is fairly clear. No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.

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