route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'dangerous rights' and '[HIGH RAM]', indicating potential security risks and high resource usage, but lacks details on what 'routing' does (e.g., enumerates paths, modifies permissions), side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with 'dangerous' in its name and no structured safety hints.

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 the core action, consisting of one main sentence and a bracketed note. It avoids redundancy but is overly terse, under-specifying key details like what 'routing' entails. While efficient, it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 tool's complexity (implied by 'dangerous rights' and routing logic), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits critical details: what 'routing' does, the nature of 'dangerous rights', output format, and safety considerations. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, with one parameter 'domain' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information—it doesn't explain what 'domain' means (e.g., Active Directory domain name), its format, or how it influences the routing. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.

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 'Route[s] non-privileged computer(s) with dangerous rights to user(s)' which specifies the action (routing), resources (computers, users), and context (dangerous rights). However, it's vague about what 'routing' entails (e.g., finding paths, granting access) 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_groups', which target different endpoints.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing domain context), exclusions, or compare it to similar sibling tools (e.g., 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_comps' for computers instead of users). The '[HIGH RAM]' tag hints at resource intensity but doesn't clarify usage scenarios.

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