list_arp_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Show' strongly implies a non-destructive read, which is the key behavioral fact. However, it does not disclose whether the call is VDOM-scoped, whether it is a slow monitor-style command, or how results are returned/paginated.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. The parenthetical field list is compact and informative.

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 simple read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and only one required parameter, this is largely sufficient; the field enumeration substitutes for a missing output schema. The remaining gap is guidance on VDOM scoping and when this table is the right source of truth.

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%, so the schema already documents device_id ('FortiGate device identifier') and vdom ('Virtual Domain'); baseline is 3. The description adds the output field list, which gives useful context about what the call yields, slightly above baseline for a two-parameter tool.

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 ('Show') and resource ('ARP table') and even enumerates the returned fields (IP, MAC, interface, age), which is more than the name alone conveys. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as list_lldp_neighbors or get_routing_table, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 says nothing about when to use this versus alternatives like list_lldp_neighbors, list_interface_counters, or get_routing_table, and offers no prerequisite or scoping context. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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