Arp Table

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only inspection via "Show," but says nothing about whether the table is local-scope, whether elevated privileges are required, whether the ARP entry list is filtered or truncated, or what the response looks like.

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?

"Show ARP table" is front-loaded and free of waste, so an agent can parse it instantly. It verges on under-specification rather than padding, which costs it the top mark but not much more.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and three words do not tell the agent what the returned table contains or how it differs from the other network-diagnostic siblings. For a zero-parameter tool in a crowded network-tools namespace, the description should at least establish that it returns the local ARP cache entries.

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, so the schema leaves nothing to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty input schema.

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?

States a verb and a specific resource ("Show" + "ARP table"), so the agent knows it reads the ARP cache rather than performing a network test. However, it never distinguishes itself from the neighboring arping_host tool, which also involves ARP but actively probes a host, nor does it say whether the table is the local machine's or a remote device's.

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 call this versus arping_host, netstat_connections, or ss_connections. An agent must infer the use case (e.g., inspecting the local IP-to-MAC mapping) entirely on its own.

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