list_arp_bindings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a non-mutating operation, and the description 'list' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral details such as whether all bindings are returned, pagination limits, or output format. With annotations covering the main safety aspect, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise, using a single short phrase. While it is slightly redundant ('list ARP binding list'), it is appropriately sized for a simple no-parameter list operation and does not waste words.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, a readOnlyHint, and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for correct invocation. It does not explain the exact scope of bindings or return structure, but the output schema covers return values and the operation is straightforward. The missing usage guidance is captured in dimension 2.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none exist. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 '列出 ARP 绑定列表' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (ARP bindings), which matches the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling mutation tools like add_arp_binding and delete_arp_binding by indicating a read-only listing operation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus related list tools such as list_ipv6_neighbors or list_dhcp_static_bindings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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