validate_fxmanifest

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by clarifying that the manifest is parsed 'without executing it' and that it inspects declared API, distribution and load order. It does not cover return values or error behavior, but the safety profile is reinforced.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key non-execution constraint. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no redundant text.

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 one-parameter tool with rich safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and syntax constraint. However, because there is no output schema, the description could do more to explain what the parse returns or what validation errors look like.

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 schema does not explain the single 'code' parameter. The description partially compensates by indicating that the input is a pasted Lua manifest with Lua 5.3-compatible syntax, but it does not mention the maxLength constraint or provide further format details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a pasted Lua manifest'. It further scopes the purpose by saying it does not execute the manifest and instead inspects declared API, distribution and load order. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like review_fivem_source or inspect_fivem_resource.

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 when to use the tool by mentioning 'pasted Lua manifest' and 'Lua 5.3-compatible manifest syntax only'. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it, so usage guidance is only implied.

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