plan_fivem_resource

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Does not write files' is largely redundant. What the description does add is content-level behavior: the output is a house-style plan containing explicit validation steps. It does not say how complete the plan is, what sections it covers, or whether it depends on prior 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 with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the scoping caveat. Brevity is close to under-specification here, but nothing written is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the returned plan looks like, and 'house-style' plus 'explicit validation steps' is undefined. It also leaves both input parameters undocumented. For a planning tool feeding a downstream compose/preview flow, an agent cannot predict the response shape or how 'ui' changes it.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. The 'ui' parameter with its enum (none/vanilla/react/vue/svelte) is never mentioned, and 'name' is left to the schema's min/max length alone with no indication of naming conventions or how it shapes the plan.

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 ('Return a ... FiveM resource plan') and adds a differentiating qualifier ('house-style ... with explicit validation steps'). It is distinguishable from mutating siblings, though it never names compose_fivem_context or preview_fivem_template, which occupy adjacent planning/rendering space.

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 only guidance is the negative 'Does not write files', which restates the readOnly annotation rather than telling the agent when to pick this over compose_fivem_context, preview_fivem_template, or inspect_fivem_resource. No prerequisites, no ordering, no exclusions tied to alternatives.

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