fx_get_resource_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Obtém' implies a read-only inspection, and the parenthetical clarifies what is inspected, but nothing is stated about behavior on an invalid/nonexistent resource name, filesystem access requirements, or whether any state is mutated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the enumeration of returned artifacts follows. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description compensates by listing the categories of data returned (manifest, declared/missing files, dependencies, exports). That covers the main completeness gap; only error/failure behavior for a bad path is unaddressed.

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 100%: the single parameter 'resourceNameOrPath' is fully documented in the schema with name-or-path examples. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Obtém') and resource ('recurso'), then enumerates exactly what is retrieved: fxmanifest.lua, declared/missing files, dependencies, exports. This clearly separates it from the list-oriented siblings (fx_list_resources, fx_list_live_resources), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus fx_read_file, fx_list_resources, or fx_resource_action. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are given; the agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose sentence.

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