gx3_device_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the prerequisite and data source, implying a read-only query, but does not explicitly state side effects, error conditions, or whether anything is modified. The prerequisite adds useful behavioral context.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the output types. The prerequisite is efficiently included at the end. Every word 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?

For a report tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and prerequisite but omits return format, structure of 'usage ranges/density/free gaps', and behavior around edge cases. Adequate but leaves important questions unanswered.

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?

The schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'device-type' and 'free gaps' loosely connects to 'types' and 'min_free' but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies concrete outputs ('usage ranges, density, free gaps') and the data source ('SQLite index'), making the tool's function clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Provides a prerequisite ('build index-lite first') but no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like gx3_network_map or gx3_trace_device. No exclusion criteria or alternative references are offered.

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