probe_drawhandler

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the scanning process and target values (0.1-2.0), implying a read-only probe. However, it does not explicitly state whether it modifies memory or has side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise (4 lines) and well-structured: it starts with the core action, then provides context (FiveM usage), and finally details the scanning method. No redundant 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?

The description explains what the tool does and its internal logic. However, since an output schema exists, the description could briefly mention what the probe returns (e.g., addresses or values) for completeness. It is nearly complete.

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 tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema covers 100%.

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's purpose: to probe for a specific pointer chain (DrawHandler -> StreamRenderGfx) used for visual wheel modifications. It is distinct from sibling tools like probe_wheels or find_wheel_visual_offsets.

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 the tool is for visual wheel size/width modifications in FiveM, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like probe_wheels or get_wheel_values. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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