gx3_trace_device

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the schema by explaining that MC master-control zone conditions are folded into enable logic and that the output warns on multi-OUT-coil devices and rows below conditional jumps. This informs the caller of special-case handling, though it does not address read-only nature or return format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding consequential behavioral details. Every sentence contributes unique information: the first defines the main action, the second discloses edge-case handling and output warnings. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description gives strong behavioral context but does not explain what the trace result looks like or how it is structured. It mentions warnings but not the main output format. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, more information about the return value would improve completeness, though the purpose and behavior are largely covered.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters (device, root, ja, compact, strict_logic). The description itself does not elaborate on individual parameters, but the overall context about tracing from ladder topology helps interpret the required device and root inputs. It adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb ("Trace") and resource ("a device's ON/OFF/hold conditions") from a defined source ("exact ladder topology"), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like interlock_check or xref_where_used. It also adds distinctive details about folding MC master-control zone conditions and warning on multi-OUT-coil devices, making its purpose unambiguous and non-tautological.

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 implies usage context for device-level tracing in ladder logic but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor names alternatives. It does not mention how this differs from interlock_check or xref_where_used beyond the inherent purpose, so usage is only implicit.

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