gx3_alarm_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses the side effect ('Reads the project; WRITES a CSV'), the interpretation rules for clearing based on hold type, and warns against inferring power-cycle requirements from an empty RST list. These are exactly the behavioral nuances an agent needs beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and output, then provides necessary interpretive guidance. Every sentence adds value, though the clearing-interpretation second half is dense and slightly long. It earns a strong score, but the structure could be tightened without losing necessary nuance.

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 description covers the purpose, output format, side effect, interpretive rules, and a prerequisite, which is substantial for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. The main gap is that 'mode=list' versus 'mode=show' semantics are not described, leaving the agent to infer how to use the third parameter correctly. Otherwise, the tool is well specified.

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 coverage is 67%, with root and device already described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; notably, the 'mode' enum (list/show) is not explained beyond its values, and the description never clarifies how mode interacts with the inventory versus show behavior. It neither heavily compensates nor significantly neglects, so a baseline 3 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Inventory every alarm and fault device' with the exact attributes captured (trigger, latch, timer setpoint, reset). It also states the core question it answers ('what raises this alarm and how is it cleared') and notes the CSV output, making it clearly distinct from sibling ladder-printing or tracing tools.

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 context for when the tool is valuable: answering alarm trigger/reset questions without manual ladder reading. It also states the xref DB prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks the exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.

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