Validate fxmanifest.lua

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 covered. The description adds value by disclosing the specific rule categories checked (Enhanced-only, compiled outputs, NUI packaging, deprecated/experimental fields), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists specific validation aspects without any redundant phrasing. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool's moderate complexity (validation with one required and one optional parameter), the description covers the core behavior and validation categories. The presence of an output schema and annotations compensates for lack of return detail. However, the unexplained 'resourceFiles' parameter prevents a perfect score.

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 only explains the 'manifest' parameter implicitly via 'supplied fxmanifest.lua text'. It does not explain 'resourceFiles' at all, leaving a significant gap for the optional array parameter. Even though there are only two parameters, half are undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Validate') with a distinct resource ('supplied fxmanifest.lua text') and enumerates specific validation dimensions (Enhanced-only rules, compiled script outputs, NUI packaging, deprecated/experimental fields). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_nui_compatibility or review_resource_structure.

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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool by listing the exact validation criteria, which aligns with validating a manifest before deployment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough to guide tool selection among siblings.

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