gx3_trace_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses that MC master-control zone conditions are folded into enable logic, that multi-OUT-coil devices and jump-skipped rows produce warnings, and that output includes device comments. These are non-obvious behavioral details beyond what the schema or name reveal.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by edge-case behavior and output guidance. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral results, warnings, and the expected output-pairing instruction. It could go slightly further by explaining how max_depth constrains the trace, but the high schema coverage and strong behavioral detail make it largely complete.

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. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond noting the output carries comments; max_depth remains undocumented in both schema and description. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 and resource: 'Trace a device's ON/OFF/hold conditions from exact ladder topology.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by telling the agent to use gx3_ladder_print for showing the rung, making the division of labor clear.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool—when tracing a device's conditions from ladder topology—and explicitly routes rung display to gx3_ladder_print rather than describing the rung in prose. It does not enumerate exclusions versus other siblings like gx3_xref_where_used or gx3_interlock_check, but the context is still clear.

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