runAs

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent, covering the safety profile. The description adds a genuinely useful runtime constraint (trusted owner + interactive x64 desktop) not present in annotations, but says nothing about credential handling or what happens to the spawned process.

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 sentences with no filler, and the identifying phrase is front-loaded before the precondition. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the environmental prerequisite but omits the core action, failure modes, and the semantics of logonFlag/showFlag. The schema carries parameter detail and annotations carry safety, so it is minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters (user, domain, password, program, logonFlag, showFlag, workingDir) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

'Windows AutoIt runAs' identifies the mechanism and implies executing as another user, but it never states an explicit verb+resource phrase (e.g. 'runs a program under a different user account'). It also fails to distinguish this tool from close siblings like run, runWait, and runAsWait.

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 supplies a precondition ('Requires a trusted owner and an interactive Windows x64 desktop') but gives no when-to-use guidance and never contrasts runAs with run, runWait, or runAsWait. An agent is left to infer when this is the right tool.

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