arp_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: no statement that this is a read-only lookup, no scope limits (local subnet only, cached entries, staleness), no output shape. The phrase 'has learned' hints at cached/dynamic state, which is the only real behavioral signal.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though a fragment rather than a complete statement of action.

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?

An output schema exists and the tool is parameterless, so the description needn't explain return values. Still, it omits the read-only nature and entry scope, which are the only things an agent would need beyond the schema — leaving it minimally adequate.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the description correctly implies a no-argument retrieval with no filtering options. Baseline 4 applies since there is nothing to document.

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 names the resource precisely — IP-to-MAC pairs learned on the local network — which is clearly the ARP table and distinguishably not route_table or interfaces. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so it reads as a description of return data rather than stating what the tool does (retrieve/return the 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 indication of when to call this versus siblings like route_table, ip_config, or interfaces, all of which overlap in the local-network diagnostics space. The agent must infer usage from the sentence alone; there are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.

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