gx3_dead_logic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool reads the project and writes a CSV under the output directory, which is a non-obvious side effect. It also reveals the network-device exclusion and the xref DB prerequisite, making behavioral traits and assumptions transparent.

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 a vivid purpose statement followed by concrete examples. Each subsequent sentence earns its place: return grouping, side effects, exclusions, and prerequisites. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, output format, side effects (CSV write), exclusions (network devices), and prerequisites (xref DB), enabling an agent to select and invoke the tool safely.

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%: the only parameter 'root' is already documented as 'Extracted project folder.' The description mentions 'the project' but does not add new meaning about how 'root' is used beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('logic that can never do anything'), then enumerates four concrete detection categories: contacts that can never close, NC contacts on always-ON relays, written-but-never-read coils/words, and SET latches with no matching RST. This distinguishes it from siblings like gx3_lint, gx3_data_flow, and gx3_xref_where_used without needing to open their schemas.

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 provides clear context by stating a prerequisite ('Requires the xref DB') and an exclusion rule ('Devices refreshed from a network are excluded, since a remote station may be the real reader'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this when...', so it lacks explicit routing versus siblings.

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