flush_arp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default non-destructive preview behavior and the confirm gate, which is real behavioral value. However, it omits impact details an agent would want for a state-changing network operation: whether connectivity is briefly disrupted, whether privileges are required, and whether the flush is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the safety constraint immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, so return values need not be explained, and the preview/confirm semantics cover the main call-correctness concern. For a state-mutating, annotation-free tool, though, the definition should say more about blast radius and preconditions than it does.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single confirm parameter, and it does: 'Preview unless confirm=true' explains the effect of both boolean states, which the bare schema (type/default only) does not. It remains silent on whether the preview returns a description of what would be flushed.

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 specific verb (Flush) and resource (ARP cache of the Pi-hole host), which distinguishes it from sibling cache/log flush tools like flush_cache and flush_logs by naming ARP specifically. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it lands just under a 5.

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 gives operational guidance for invocation (preview unless confirm=true) but no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives such as flush_network or restart_dns. Usage is only implied by the stated purpose.

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