arp_scan

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint:true and readOnlyHint:false, but the description does not explain the destructive nature (e.g., network noise, potential detection). It adds value by stating the network segment constraint and that it returns IP, MAC, hostname, and vendor, but lacks details on rate limits or side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key differentiator, followed by return values and a constraint. Every sentence is essential; no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return values, and a network constraint. It could mention privilege requirements (e.g., root/administrator) for completeness, but overall it is adequate.

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 covers the single parameter 'cidr' with a description and example. The tool description does not add additional meaning or format details beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, 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?

The description clearly states 'Layer 2 LAN host discovery — finds ALL devices on local network including those that block ICMP/TCP', specifying the verb (finds) and resource (devices on local network), and distinguishes from higher-layer tools like ping_sweep and port_scan by noting it works even when ICMP/TCP is blocked.

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 gives clear context: use this tool for discovering all devices on the local network segment, especially those that block ICMP/TCP. It mentions the constraint 'Only possible from a machine on the same network segment', which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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