Review FiveM event security

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the 'static heuristic' nature and specific review focus, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about the review's scope and limitations (heuristic implies possible false positives).

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and lists the specific review aspects. No redundant words or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for the tool's purpose. It conveys the scope (static heuristic review) and the specific security concerns, though it could add a brief mention of the language parameter or typical use case, but these are not critical.

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 description must compensate for parameter meanings. It references 'supplied code' (implying the 'code' parameter) but does not explain the 'language' parameter at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's enum values, leaving the language parameter's role ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool's function: performing a static heuristic review of supplied code for specific security issues (untrusted network input, broadcasts, unstable source usage, event-context mistakes). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like review_resource_structure and review_state_bag_usage, which focus on different aspects.

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 the tool is used when a user wants to review code for security concerns, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria. Unlike a high-scoring example, it lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'use instead' guidance.

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