compose_fivem_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the useful detail that references are 'installed house references' (local, not web), but says nothing about missing-workflow behavior, output shape, or size of the returned context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by timing. No filler or repeated structured data.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is barely sufficient. It omits what the returned context looks like and how large or structured it is, which matters for a context-composition tool.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only alludes to 'one coding workflow' and 'optional NUI framework'. It does not explain what the workflow values select or what choosing a ui framework changes in the returned references.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading installed house references scoped to a workflow and optional NUI framework. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_fivem_native or get_infrontofx_guidance, though the 'compose' framing is not fully explained.

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?

Gives a timing hint ('Use before implementing or reviewing a FiveM resource') but never names an alternative tool or when-not to use it. An agent has to infer how this differs from get_infrontofx_guidance or get_infrontofx_skill.

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