Show the ARP table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting MAC addresses are reported in one canonical form, which is not in the structured fields. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the bar is lower due to annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the key usage distinction. Every sentence adds value: definition, comparison to DHCP, and a note on MAC address format.

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 read-only table listing tool with a rich output schema, full parameter coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and a behavioral detail (canonical MAC form). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly, including defaults, limits, and the interface filter caveat. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (ARP table), then immediately defines what the ARP table is (IP-to-MAC bindings). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_dhcp_leases because the description explains ARP catches devices DHCP does not.

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 clear usage context: 'ARP catches devices DHCP does not... so it is the fallback when a device is present but holds no lease.' This implicitly tells the agent when to prefer this tool over list_dhcp_leases, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or state exclusions.

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