Inspect FiveM Resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries a heavier burden. The verb 'inspects' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, nor does it mention return formats, error behavior, or permissions. It adds some context by listing what is inspected (manifest, dependencies, file evidence) but stops short of full transparency.

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, tightly worded sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description could be more complete. It lists what it inspects but does not explain the nature of the returned evidence or that the operation is read-only. Without an output schema, the agent relies on the description to set expectations for results, which is somewhat vague.

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 100% with a clear description of the 'name' parameter ('Resource folder name, for example oxmysql'). The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only reiterating 'one resource folder' which is already implied by the singular parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'inspects one resource folder' and specifies what it covers: manifest, dependencies, and related file evidence. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like doctor_scan (broader scan), propose_fixes, and apply_fix.

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 usage for detailed inspection of a specific resource, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit 'when' or 'when-not' guidance, relying on the tool name and sibling context to convey its niche.

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