get_arp_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's '[READ]' marker is consistent. It adds the returned fields, which is useful, but does not disclose target omission behavior or any other operational detail beyond the safety annotation.

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 front-loaded with the key resource and returned fields, followed by a compact Args section. Every part is useful, with no filler.

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 simple read tool with a readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description covers the resource, returned fields, and parameter meaning. However, it leaves the behavior when target is omitted unspecified, which could matter since the parameter is optional.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the single parameter: 'target: Device name from config,' which adds meaning beyond the bare string/null schema, though it omits optional/default behavior.

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 a specific resource – ARP table entries – and enumerates the fields returned (interface, IP, MAC, age). It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_mac_address_table.

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 when-to-use context, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description only states what the tool returns; an agent must infer that this is for ARP inspection when needed.

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