run_as_user

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only notes that authentication is an 'attempt' and is 'for the current session.' It omits side effects, required permissions, failure modes, and the impact on subsequent operations. The phrase 'network calls only' is ambiguous and does not clarify the tool's behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded, with a single clear sentence followed by an args list. Explanations for username and password are useful and avoid fluff. However, the args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, and the missing agent_id is a structural gap.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to clarify the role of agent_id, the nature of 'network calls,' or the authentication's effect on the current session. For a security-sensitive tool, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three required parameters. It explains username and password meaningfully, but completely fails to mention agent_id, a required field. This leaves a critical parameter undocumented, offering only partial compensation.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Attempt to authenticate as another user.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_shell_command or ad_recon by focusing on authentication rather than execution or reconnaissance. The qualifier '(network calls only)' adds further specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, recommended contexts, or any exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced, and the 'network calls only' hint is too vague to serve as a usage guideline.

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