gx3_alarm_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it states the tool reads the project, writes a CSV, requires the xref DB, and flags alarms with no reset condition. It does not detail CSV location or overwrite behavior, but the key operational facts are present.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the inventory scope, the answered question, the CSV side effect, the no-reset-condition warning, and the xref DB prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no 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 tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context about output (a CSV) and prerequisites. It does not explain how mode=list versus mode=show changes behavior, but the schema compensates with the enum, default, and device requirement.

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 description adds no parameter-level explanation; it does not mention mode, root, or device. The schema already describes root and device and gives mode an enum and default, so the agent can invoke the tool correctly, but the description misses the chance to clarify when mode=show is appropriate.

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 names the resource (alarm and fault devices), the specific analysis (triggers, latch state, timer setpoints, reset conditions), and the user-facing question it answers. It also differentiates itself from ladder-reading tools like gx3_ladder_print by explicitly saying it avoids reading the ladder by hand.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool: when the user needs to know what raises an alarm and how it is cleared, without inspecting the ladder manually. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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