gx3_trace_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses several non-obvious behaviors: MC master-control conditions are folded into enable logic, warnings are produced for multi-OUT-coil devices and rows below conditional jumps, and the output includes per-device comments. This goes well beyond a simple 'trace a device' statement and alerts the agent to important edge cases.

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?

Two dense sentences earn their place: the first states core function and algorithmic details; the second adds output expectations and a direct routing instruction to a sibling tool. No filler or repetition exists, and the most important scoping phrase ('from exact ladder topology') appears early.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers the key output behaviors: folded enable logic, warning conditions, and comment preservation. It also gives a practical instruction for reporting results. It could be more explicit about the exact output shape or how max_depth/strict_logic affect results, but the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 83%, so the structured schema already documents most parameters. The description adds conceptual context for the 'device' parameter (ON/OFF/hold conditions) and 'root' (ladder topology) but does not explain compact, max_depth, or strict_logic beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific verb ('Trace'), a specific resource ('a device's ON/OFF/hold conditions'), and a specific method ('from exact ladder topology'). It also adds distinctive behaviors—MC master-control folding, warnings for multi-OUT coils and conditional-jump rows—that separate it from generic xref or data-flow tools. This is far beyond a tautological restatement of the tool name.

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 gives clear usage context: it is for tracing enable conditions from exact ladder topology, not for simply printing rungs. It explicitly directs the agent to use gx3_ladder_print to show the rung rather than describing it in prose. It does not enumerate all sibling alternatives or state explicit 'when not to use' conditions for every sibling, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.

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