get_arp_table

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

The '[READ]' prefix indicates idempotency and no side effects, but no annotations are provided to supplement. The description does not disclose details such as error behavior, pagination, or what happens when target is null. For a read operation, this is minimally acceptable but lacks depth.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler. The output fields are listed concisely, and the parameter is explained in a clear bullet format. Every word serves a purpose.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and parameter meaning. However, it omits details like default behavior when target is null and potential error cases, making it slightly incomplete for an agent to use autonomously.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds 'Device name from config' for the target parameter, providing context beyond the raw schema types. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could clarify that target is optional and its 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?

Description clearly states the tool reads ARP table entries and lists the returned fields (interface, IP, MAC, age). The verb 'get' combined with 'ARP table' and the read indicator '[READ]' makes the purpose unambiguous. Among siblings like get_mac_address_table and get_interfaces, it is distinct.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_mac_address_table for MAC table). The description only lists the parameter and output fields, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role without comparative context.

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