get_arp_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is for viewing (read-only) and works on three OSes, implying cross-platform behavior. It does not disclose potential side effects, but the operation is inherently read-only, so transparency is good.

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 three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return information. Every sentence is informative and front-loaded with the action. No redundancy.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is complete for this simple tool.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (IP addresses, MAC addresses, states), which is beyond the empty schema. Baseline is 4, and the description adds enough to warrant a 5.

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 states the tool gets the ARP table, which is a specific resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning ARP cache and IP to MAC address mappings, which is unique among network tools.

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 says 'Use this tool to view the ARP cache', providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it misses some exclusion guidance.

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