gx3_network_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well. It states the tool 'Reads the project and the comm detail CSVs; WRITES its own CSVs under the output directory,' and explicitly disclaims live communication: 'It does not communicate with any device -- everything is read from the project files.' This is unusually transparent about side effects and safety-relevant behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, each contributing distinct information: what the tool maps, when to use it, what it reads/writes, and what it does not do. The key behavior is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition.

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 definition is complete enough for tool selection and invocation: parameters are simple and fully documented by the schema, and the description explains inputs, outputs, and the non-device-boundary. Since there is no output schema, one could wish for the exact CSV names or a sample of columns, but the existing description compensates reasonably by stating where outputs are written and that the view is aggregated.

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%, so the baseline applies. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already says: root is 'Extracted project folder' and prefix is 'Communication prefix (optional).' No extra syntax, defaults, or format guidance is provided.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Map how this PLC is wired to everything outside it,' and enumerates the included content (IP addresses, CC-Link and SCON stations, safety relationships). It also clarifies that the tool is about external wiring and ownership, which separates it from sibling tools like gx3_device_map and gx3_data_flow.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use it to find which unit or remote station owns a device before assuming the program drives it.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is specific enough to route usage.

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