route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_gpos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions '[HIGH RAM]' which suggests resource-intensive operation, but doesn't describe what 'dangerous rights' entail, what 'route' actually does (e.g., creates relationships, modifies permissions), what the output looks like, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with security implications.

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 extremely brief (one sentence fragment plus a bracketed note). While this is concise, it's arguably under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The '[HIGH RAM]' warning is front-loaded but the core description lacks necessary detail.

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 security-focused routing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'non-privileged computers' or 'dangerous rights,' what the routing operation entails, or what results to expect. The '[HIGH RAM]' warning is helpful but insufficient for understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter - what format it expects, what values are valid, or how it affects the operation. This leaves the single required parameter completely undocumented beyond its name.

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 states the tool routes non-privileged computers with dangerous rights to GPOs, which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'route' means operationally and doesn't clearly distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_groups' or 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_users'.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions '[HIGH RAM]' which might imply resource considerations, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to other routing tools in the sibling list.

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