arp_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the content (IP-MAC mapping visible to router) but does not disclose any behavioral traits like read-only nature, output format, or potential delays. The description is too minimal for a no-annotation case.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not describe return format, pagination, or how this tool fits among siblings like 'neighbors' or 'routing_table'. For a tool with zero complexity, it is minimally adequate but incomplete.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to rules, baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no extra param info but is not required to.

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 that the tool retrieves the ARP table, which maps IP to MAC addresses visible to the router. The verb 'tabel' (table) implies listing, and the resource is specific (ARP table). It distinguishes from siblings like 'routing_table' or 'neighbors' by focusing on IP-MAC mapping.

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 this tool versus alternatives such as 'neighbors' or 'routing_table'. The description does not provide context for selection or exclusions.

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