get_arp_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The mention of 'show ip arp' indicates this is a read-only show command, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what the output contains, whether it works only on certain devices, or any side effects beyond being a read operation.

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 a single, focused sentence that directly states the purpose and even includes the command syntax. There is no fluff or redundant wording; every word 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description is mostly adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain the role of the 'device' parameter or when to use this specific tool over siblings, so an agent might not know how to invoke it correctly in all contexts. It is minimally viable but not thorough.

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 describes the 'device' parameter but provides no description, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining that the ARP table is fetched for a specified device, but it fails to do so. The parameter name 'device' is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Show the ARP table'. It also includes the underlying command ('show ip arp'), which unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like get_mac_address_table or get_routing_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with related tools such as run_show_command or get_mac_address_table. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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