arp_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the active mechanism (sends ARP requests), scope (local network segment), and return fields, but it does not mention prerequisite privileges, interface behavior beyond auto-detection, or side effects of active scanning.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose, use case/comparison, and output are each in their own sentence, and the most decision-relevant message (purpose + faster than nmap) comes first.

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 straightforward scanning tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states method, scope, output format, and choice over nmap. The remaining gap is an explicit note on required privileges or interface prerequisites.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (opts, iface, target) with examples. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'ARP-based host discovery', explicitly states it sends ARP requests and identifies live hosts by MAC address and vendor, and lists the output fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scanners like nmap and masscan.

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?

States a concrete use case: 'Use for initial reconnaissance of a local subnet' and positions it against nmap ('faster and more reliable than nmap ping scans on the same LAN'). It does not spell out when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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