Status do servidor FiveM

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly says the tool only reads public endpoints of the FXServer, which conveys a read-only, unauthenticated operation and differentiates it from control/command siblings. It does not discuss error behavior when the server is offline, but for a zero-parameter status check this is a minor gap.

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 the returned fields and ending with the data source. Every word contributes; no fluff or repetition.

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 parameterless status endpoint, the description lists all relevant output categories and the data source. There is no output schema, but the enumerated fields effectively tell the agent what to expect. No additional context seems necessary for correct invocation.

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 tool has no parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies because the description is not required to explain any inputs.

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 the tool returns server status (up/down), hostname, players, slots, game build, and resource count, using the verb 'Lê' reading public FXServer endpoints. It is clear about the resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as fivem_players or fivem_server_control.

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 this is the tool to call for a read-only health overview of the FiveM server, and the listed fields suggest it covers player counts too. However, it never says when to prefer it over fivem_players or fivem_server_control, or when not to use it.

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