Run FiveM Server Doctor Scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions scanning and returning ranked findings, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or how the findings are structured. This leaves significant unknowns for an agent.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action, scope, and result. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview but lacks details about the return value (e.g., what constitutes 'ranked findings' or severity levels). It also omits any prerequisites or environment context. This leaves the description moderately complete but with gaps.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter usage. The baseline of 4 applies for no-parameter tools, and the description correctly provides no parameter-related information that would be redundant or missing.

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 action ('scans') and lists the specific targets (txAdmin status/logs, server.cfg, resources, manifests, dependencies) along with the outcome ('returns ranked findings'). This distinguishes it from siblings like resource_inspect, which focuses on individual resources.

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 a comprehensive diagnostic scan but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no usage exclusions or mentions of when to prefer resource_inspect or propose_fixes. The context is clear from the title and scope, but not spelled out.

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