run_command_as_admin

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds that it requires elevation, triggers UAC, and runs with full admin rights. It does not elaborate on specific side effects or what might be destroyed, but provides sufficient context beyond 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 well-structured with paragraphs, front-loading the action and then detailing implications. It is concise without being overly terse, but could be slightly more compact.

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?

Given the complexity of running administrative commands, the description covers the essential behavioral context (UAC prompt, full rights) and specifies the return format. The presence of an output schema, though not shown, is complemented by the description's mention of the JSON structure.

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 already describes both parameters ('command' and 'timeout') with meaningful descriptions. The tool description only generically references 'the command line and a timeout,' adding no new semantic information beyond the schema.

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,' unequivocally identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'run_command' by specifying the elevation context.

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 explains that running without elevation triggers a UAC prompt and warns to use with care, implicitly guiding when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or directly name alternative tools.

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