gx3_data_flow

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 does well: it discloses that the analysis is conservative, that no guessed edges are emitted, that unresolved operations become unresolved records, and that device comments are included when available. This adds substantive behavioral context 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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by edge attributes, then behavior for unknown operations and device comments. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a solid job of conveying the result shape: edges with specific fields, unresolved records, and device comments. It is slightly incomplete because it does not describe how the returned data is packaged or how the format parameter affects it, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 75%, so the schema already explains root, device, and opcode. The description introduces important domain concepts like argument indexes, widths, ranges, and confidence, but it does not specifically explain how the parameters affect the output beyond what the schema states.

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, action-oriented verb ('Build') and names a well-defined resource ('argument-level source-to-destination value-flow edges'). It goes on to specify the kinds of instructions covered and the fields produced, making it clearly distinct from siblings like gx3_trace_device or gx3_xref_where_used.

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 this tool is for conservative value-flow analysis and mentions behavior for unknown operations, so an agent can infer a use case. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as gx3_trace_device or gx3_xref_where_used, nor does it name any exclusions.

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