zeek_dhcp_asset_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only analysis but does not explicitly state whether it's read-only, required permissions, or any other behavioral traits like data freshness, pagination, or rate limits.

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 sentences efficiently convey the purpose and use case. No extraneous information; the key action and result are front-loaded.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level output structure (MAC to IP/hostname) but lacks details on output format, limits, or ordering. It is adequate but leaves questions about the returned data's granularity.

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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters already described as ISO 8601 time strings. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as default time range or behavior if omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb ('Build an asset map') and the resource ('from DHCP logs'), and specifies the output ('MAC address to IP/hostname mappings'). The use case for identifying unknown/rogue devices distinguishes it from other Zeek 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 provides a use case ('identifying all devices on the network and spotting unknown/rogue devices') but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like zeek_query_dhcp or zeek_network_baseline. No exclusionary guidance is given.

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