gx3_device_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool is read-only, returns a table, writes nothing, and requires the index-lite DB to be built first. This is strong disclosure, though it could mention whether empty results are possible or how the output table is structured.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, use cases follow, and the prerequisite command is placed last where it is relevant. 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 read-only reporting tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, read-only behavior, return shape ('a table'), and prerequisite setup. It could more fully explain the default behavior when `types` is omitted, but the core context an agent needs is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context around 'device types' and 'gaps' but does not add meaningful details about the `root`, `types`, or `min_free` parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific action ('Report'), a specific resource ('per device type ... numbers in use ... free gaps'), and concrete use cases. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like gx3_trace_device or gx3_interlock_check without needing to compare schemas.

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 explicit context: use it before adding devices or for project layout inspection. It also warns about the index-lite DB prerequisite with a concrete command. It does not mention alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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