discover_network_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that an ARP scan is used, but fails to mention important traits such as whether elevated privileges are required, potential network impact, or what kind of results are returned (e.g., IP addresses, MAC addresses). This is insufficient for a network scanning tool.

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 at five words, but this comes at the cost of critical information. While front-loading is good, the tool lacks essential context that could be added without excessive length.

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 one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete for a network discovery tool. It does not explain the behavior when no network_range is provided, the typical output structure, or how it differs from similar tools in the sibling list.

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 only parameter 'network_range' is not described anywhere in the schema or the description. The schema coverage is 0%. The description does not clarify the expected format (e.g., CIDR notation, IP range), whether it is optional, or what happens if omitted. This leaves the agent completely uninformed.

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 'Discover', the resource 'clients', and the method 'using ARP scan'. It is specific enough to indicate the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from nearby siblings like 'scan_local_network' which may also discover clients, missing a chance to clarify scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scan_local_network or scan_wireless_networks. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when to avoid this tool.

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