get_arp_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does explain the data model returned (which MAC answers for which IP per interface), which is genuinely useful given no output schema exists. It is silent on read-only semantics, permissions, and pagination, but for a simple listing the content description is a reasonable partial disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating resource and payload immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly why usage guidance is absent.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned. However, it omits any usage context or scoping notes, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 both the vdom and interface parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'e.g. port2' example and the VDOM default. The description adds no parameter detail beyond this, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (the IPv4 ARP table) and clarifies its contents as MAC-to-IP mappings per interface, which an agent can distinguish from siblings like get_routing_table or get_system_status. The verb is implied by the 'get_' name rather than stated, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this is preferable to alternatives such as get_routing_table or list_interfaces, and no prerequisites (e.g., VDOM context) called out. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the resource name.

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