gx3_network_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool reads, analyzes, or modifies data, what it returns, or any side effects. The description only names a generic 'relationship map' concept, lacking essential transparency.

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 extremely brief (a single phrase), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits the core verb, usage context, and behavioral details, failing to communicate essential information an agent needs. Thus it does not earn credit for conciseness.

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 likely complexity of aggregating multiple network types, the description is highly inadequate. There is no output schema and no explanation of return values, parameter relationships, or tool behavior. An agent cannot reasonably infer when or how to invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 input schema provides clear descriptions for both parameters (root, prefix) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters influence the map generation or output, so it stays at the baseline without improvement.

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 is a noun phrase ('Aggregated IP, CC-Link, SCON, and safety relationship map') with no explicit verb indicating what the tool does. It names the content domain but not the action (generate, list, analyze). It does not distinguish from sibling mapping tools like gx3_device_map or gx3_alarm_map beyond the network-specific scope.

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?

No usage context is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the other mapping or analysis siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description offers no guidance for tool selection.

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