Executar comando no console do FiveM

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return behavior (console output), the capture ending condition (quiet console), and the timeout relationship. However, it does not warn about side effects or hazards of destructive commands (stop, kick, restart) despite accepting any server command.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and behavior. The list of command examples is somewhat long, but it earns its place by clarifying the scope of accepted commands. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Without annotations or output schema, the description explains return behavior, capture timing, and parameter tuning. It omits error handling, side-effect warnings, and output format details, which are relevant for arbitrary command execution. Adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the relationship between slow commands and timeoutMs, but otherwise the schema already defines all parameters; the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Executa um comando no console do FXServer e devolve o que o console imprimiu', with examples of accepted commands. The purpose is specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fivem_status or fivem_players; distinction is only implicit in 'any server command'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It provides parameter tuning advice (timeoutMs for slow commands) but does not mention sibling tools, when to prefer one over another, or when not to use this tool.

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