route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_comps

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 hints at high RAM usage ('HIGH RAM') and involves 'dangerous rights', suggesting potential security risks or resource intensity, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only analysis, a mutation operation, required permissions, rate limits, or what 'route' entails operationally.

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 (one sentence with a note in brackets), which is efficient and front-loaded. However, the brevity leads to under-specification, as it omits necessary details for clarity and completeness, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, how it behaves, or parameter meanings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 1 parameter ('domain'), and the description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'domain' represents (e.g., Active Directory domain, network domain), its format, or how it influences the routing. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 users with dangerous rights to computers, which gives a general purpose (verb+resource). However, it's vague about what 'route' specifically means (e.g., find paths, assign rights, list relationships) and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_comps' or 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_permissions'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'dangerous rights' and 'HIGH RAM' which might imply high-resource usage, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when 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.