route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'dangerous rights' and '[HIGH RAM]', hinting at security risks and resource intensity, but lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies data or just analyzes), rate limits, or output format. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with potential 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 very brief and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence plus a bracketed note. There's no wasted text, making it efficient. However, the note '[HIGH RAM]' is cryptic and could be better integrated or explained, slightly reducing clarity.

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 implied by 'dangerous rights' and routing, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to address key aspects like what 'dangerous rights' entail, how routing works, or what results to expect, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what the domain represents, valid formats, or how it influences the routing. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is inadequate.

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 groups, which provides a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'route' specifically entails (e.g., mapping, assigning, analyzing relationships) and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_comps' or 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_users' beyond the target being 'groups'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions '[HIGH RAM]' which might imply resource considerations, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without clear usage instructions, an agent would struggle to choose this over similar 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.