get_arp_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context that entries reflect recently communicated devices and include non-DHCP devices, but it does not disclose details about pagination, data freshness, or potential empty results. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no extraneous information. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds valuable scope clarification.

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?

For a read-only list operation with an output schema and strong annotations, the description sufficiently conveys purpose, scope, and intended use. It could slightly improve by noting that ARP entries are ephemeral, but 'recently communicated' already implies this. Complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), and the description does not add any additional parameter-specific details. It only mentions IP-to-MAC mappings, which broadly relates to ip_address and mac_address filters. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'ARP table' and states its purpose ('to discover devices on the network'). It also clarifies the data included (IP-to-MAC mappings, including non-static DHCP devices), which distinguishes it from potential sibling tools like search_dhcp_leases.

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 phrase 'to discover devices on the network' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., search_dhcp_leases) for static mappings.

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