Adicionar NUI ao resource

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'garante' and 'pode criar' but does not disclose that it writes to the fxmanifest, creates directories, or that createFiles defaults to true, meaning files will be created unless otherwise specified. This lack of side-effect transparency is risky for a multi-parameter tool with potential file mutations.

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 with no obvious fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The structure is acceptable, but it says almost nothing, so it does not earn its place as a useful description.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is critically incomplete. It explains none of the parameters, does not mention return values or side effects, and gives no indication of behavior beyond the most basic action. For a tool that modifies files and scaffolds a UI, this is severely inadequate.

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 7 parameters, and the description references none of them by name or meaning. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description completely fails to explain what resourceDir, uiPage, htmlDir, uiTheme, uiVariant, createFiles, or title represent. It adds zero value beyond the raw schema.

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 states it ensures ui_page and files in fxmanifest and can create the html folder with functional scaffold. This clearly indicates the tool adds NUI support to a resource, and the mention of 'fxmanifest' helps distinguish it from sibling fivem.ui_scaffold. However, it doesn't fully elaborate on the tool's scope or explicitly differentiate itself from other similar tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like fivem.ui_scaffold. It implies a general use case for adding NUI to a resource, but there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, making it hard for an agent to know when this is the right choice.

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