run_command_as_admin

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

The description discloses the UAC prompt behavior, output capture, and the full administrative rights with a cautionary note. This adds meaningful context beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, though it does not detail potential system-wide 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 compact and well-structured, with a clear opening statement, a warning, and an Args/Returns breakdown. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while conveying essential information, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

The description covers UAC, timeout, and the return format, which are key aspects. However, it does not mention the confirm_focus_disruption parameter, and given the destructive nature, more safety context could be provided. The presence of an output schema reduces some burden, but the gap around parameters prevents a higher score.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only mentions 'the command line and a timeout,' omitting the 'confirm_focus_disruption' parameter entirely. This provides minimal added meaning over the schema and fails to cover all inputs.

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 'Run a shell command with Administrator privileges,' specifying both the action and the elevated context. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'run_command' and makes the tool's purpose immediately apparent.

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 implies this tool is for commands requiring admin rights and warns 'use with care,' but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternative tools like 'run_command'. No direct comparison or exclusion is provided, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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