arp_search

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds only that it retrieves entries. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as result limits, ordering, or error handling. Given the annotations, the description's contribution is minimal.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose, but it is efficient and clear.

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's simplicity (one parameter, with annotations and output schema), the description is adequate. It covers what the tool does and how to use the query parameter. It does not explain return format or edge cases, but the output schema compensates.

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 100% coverage with a detailed description for the 'query' parameter, listing supported formats. However, the description mentions a non-existent 'device' parameter, which could confuse. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare field name.

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 action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('ARP entries'), and the context ('from LibreNMS by search query'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fdb_lookup' and 'ports_search' which target different resources.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for searching ARP entries, but lacks context on when other search tools might be more appropriate. However, for a straightforward tool, the implicit usage is somewhat clear.

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