arp_discovery

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

No annotations given, so description must carry transparency. It only says 'perform ARP discovery' without disclosing traits like needing root privileges, potential network disruption, or that it uses Nmap. Lacks behavioral disclosure beyond the action.

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?

Description is short with clear sections (Args and Returns). It front-loads the purpose. However, it could be slightly more concise by removing the redundant 'Args:' header since the parameter list is already in the schema.

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 output schema, the description states returns 'dict: The ARP discovery results' but doesn't detail result keys or error behavior. Missing prerequisites like network access. Adequate but not fully 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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains both parameters: 'target (str)' with example subnet '192.168.1.0/24' and 'args (str)' as additional Nmap arguments. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's title and type fields.

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 states 'Perform ARP discovery on the specified target' which specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like syn_scan or tcp_scan by focusing on ARP protocol, making its purpose clear and unique.

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 guidance on when to use ARP discovery versus other scanning methods. It does not mention limitations like local subnet requirement or that it is for LAN environments. No exclusions or alternatives provided.

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