gx3_device_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explicitly states 'Read-only', 'returns a table and writes nothing', warns that gaps are not verified free allocations, and explains what may be included or excluded. It also discloses the prerequisite database state, giving the agent a clear model of the tool's behavior and side effects.

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 core purpose and every sentence adds value: result contents, the critical verification caveat, safety/read-only behavior, and the required setup command. Nothing is redundant or extraneous.

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 are no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it states what the tool reports, what it does not guarantee, that it writes nothing, what output shape to expect, and the prerequisite setup. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it and what to do with the results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. The caveat that gaps are unverified and the 'per device type' framing enrich the meaning of `min_free` and `types`, helping the agent interpret results and filter correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and a precise resource scope ('per device type, observed LD usage, density, and gaps in the index'), which makes the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the focused phrasing distinguishes it from related tools like gx3_alarm_map or gx3_dead_logic.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: before adding devices, to identify gaps that need verification in GX Works3. It also states a concrete prerequisite ('run gx3-cli index-lite build --root <root> once per project first'), though it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools.

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