Audit NUI compatibility

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

Annotations already establish read-only/harmless behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it loads FiveM's current CEF pin, statically audits code, and is heuristic rather than authoritative. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it doesn't detail return values or edge cases.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Load... then statically audit'). Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and sibling context, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and its constraints. It clarifies the heuristic nature and the dependency on FiveM's CEF pin, making it complete for an AI agent to make an informed invocation decision.

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%, but the description compensates by enumerating the supported file types (JavaScript, TypeScript, JSX, TSX, CSS), which directly maps to the 'loader' enum. The 'source' parameter's purpose is clear from the audit context, even if not spelled out explicitly.

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 ('audit') and a clear resource ('NUI compatibility' with supported file types). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying that it loads FiveM's CEF pin and performs a static, build-time review rather than a runtime test.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: for static, build-time compatibility checks against the verified Chromium milestone. It explicitly excludes runtime browser testing, which helps differentiate from possible runtime test tools, though it does not name specific sibling alternatives.

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