gx3_network_map

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool reads project and comm detail CSVs, writes its own CSVs under the output directory, and does not communicate with any device. This fully covers the main side-effect and safety-relevant behaviors.

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 three sentences with no filler: purpose, usage cue, and behavioral constraints are each given their own sentence. Key information is front-loaded, and 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the purpose, the triggering scenario, the data sources, the write side effect, and the lack of device communication. It does not enumerate output CSV filenames or the exact return shape, but 'aggregated into one view' plus CSV output is enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, with both parameters already described meaningfully, so the baseline is 3. The description only contextualizes the parameters by mentioning project and comm detail CSVs; it does not add new format, optionality, or behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: it maps how the PLC is wired to everything outside it, covering IP addresses, CC-Link/SCON stations, and safety relationships. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tools by emphasizing external/network wiring and device ownership rather than command lists, ladders, or diffs.

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 provides a clear selection cue: 'Use it to find which unit or remote station owns a device before assuming the program drives it.' It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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