route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_priv_nodes

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 '[HIGH RAM]', hinting at resource-intensive behavior, which adds some value. However, it fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output entails, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potentially dangerous 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 brief and front-loaded, but it's overly terse. The single sentence lacks necessary details, and the '[HIGH RAM]' note is appended without integration, making it feel incomplete rather than efficiently concise.

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 name suggests a complex, potentially high-impact operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It omits essential context like behavioral risks, parameter usage, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and effective agent 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 'domain' represents, its format, or how it influences the routing, failing 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 clearly states the action ('route') and the entities involved ('non-privileged user(s) with dangerous rights' to 'privileged node(s)'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_priv_nodes' or 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_rights_to_users', which have similar naming patterns but target different entities.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, specific scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., other 'route' tools for different targets), leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.

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