Review a resource structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context by specifying that the review checks against 'documented FiveM requirements' and the 'client/server/shared/NUI house standard', giving the agent a sense of what criteria are applied. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or auth, but the non-destructive nature is reinforced by the verb 'Review'.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action verb 'Review' and the object, followed by the criteria. There is no redundant phrasing, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values need not be described) and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete. It conveys the tool's purpose, what it checks against, and the target audience (project-specific standards). However, the lack of parameter semantics and explicit usage guidance leaves minor gaps, but overall it is sufficient for a review tool with a clear scope.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the parameters. 'paths' is only vaguely implied by 'resource file list', and 'uiRequired' is only hinted at via 'NUI house standard'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer the meaning and format of the inputs, especially the boolean 'uiRequired' flag.

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 a specific verb ('Review') and resource ('supplied resource file list'), and specifies the criteria ('documented FiveM requirements and this project's explicit client/server/shared/NUI house standard'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_fxmanifest (which likely validates manifest syntax) by focusing on structural review against both external and project-specific standards.

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: when you need to check a resource file list against FiveM requirements and the project's house standard. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate from sibling tools like review_event_security or validate_fxmanifest. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, but the context is sufficiently defined.

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