inspect_fivem_resource

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations by listing what is skipped: secret-named files, private/build/vendor directories, and symlinks. It also states that the tool returns findings rather than raw files, which is useful 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?

The description is three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Scope, exclusions, and output behavior are each stated directly and efficiently.

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 covers the tool's operating scope, exclusions, and the general nature of its output, which is helpful given the rich annotations. However, with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, it should do more to explain how the resource parameter identifies the target. The definition is usable but leaves a notable invocation gap.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the single required resource parameter. The description never explains whether resource should be a name, relative path, absolute path, identifier, or something else, nor does it clarify how it relates to INFRONTOFX_RESOURCES_ROOT. This leaves an agent without the semantics needed to supply the parameter correctly.

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 operation on a named resource domain: read-only local triage inside INFRONTOFX_RESOURCES_ROOT. It also clarifies the output nature by saying it returns findings rather than raw files. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from relevant siblings such as review_fivem_source or plan_fivem_resource, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only local triage scope and the note that it returns findings instead of raw files. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like review_fivem_source, plan_fivem_resource, or validate_fxmanifest.

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