opnsense_search_neighbors

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

Even with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds important behavioral context: entries only exist for devices that communicated recently, absent entry does not prove offline, and resolve_hostnames adds latency. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 efficiently structured with an intro, usage notes, Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Each sentence adds value: the limitations, parameter semantics, return schema, and usage examples are all relevant and non-redundant. It is concise despite covering many aspects.

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?

The tool description covers purpose, usage scenarios, limitations, parameter details, return format, and concrete examples. It is complete for a search tool with output schema and annotations. The provided context signals (schema coverage, output schema) are all addressed or supplemented.

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 description includes an Args block that explains every parameter (search, family, resolve_hostnames, limit, offset, response_format) with defaults and practical examples (e.g., search='a4:83:e7'). This enriches the schema, which already provides good descriptions, making parameter usage fully clear.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search the ARP (IPv4) and NDP (IPv6) neighbour tables to find which device holds an address, or which addresses a MAC has.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like opnsense_list_dhcp_leases, and later examples reinforce the exact use cases.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use ('fastest way to identify an unknown host on a segment'), when not to use ('Don't use when: You want the full DHCP allocation'), and suggests pairing with opnsense_list_dhcp_leases for a fuller picture. Provides clear alternatives and exclusions.

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