get_arp_table

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

The description adds the exact command executed ('show arp entry all') beyond the annotations, giving the agent concrete insight into the underlying operation. The [READ-ONLY] prefix reinforces the annotation, and there is no contradiction or hidden side effect disclosed or omitted.

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?

Two short, efficient sentences with no redundant filler. The read-only indicator and purpose are front-loaded, and the exact command is provided in the second sentence.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and safety annotations already present, the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention the returned fields or format, but that is not critical given the straightforward nature of the operation.

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 single 'firewall' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Retrieves ARP table entries from the firewall.' It clearly identifies the data being fetched and is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which target ARP tables.

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 makes it clear this tool is for reading ARP table entries from a firewall. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can select it appropriately among the get_* siblings.

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