route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_permissions

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 'route' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only analysis tool or performs actual routing operations, what 'dangerous permissions' entail, what 'any node type' includes, or what the output format might be. For a tool with security implications ('dangerous permissions'), this lack of behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys, though this brevity contributes to the overall inadequacy. The structure is straightforward but lacks depth.

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 permissions' and routing operations, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address security implications, output format, or parameter usage, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation in this context.

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 ('domain') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description doesn't mention the 'domain' parameter at all, nor does it explain what format or scope it expects. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning 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 user(s) with dangerous permissions to any node type', which provides a specific verb ('Route') and target resource ('non-privileged user(s) with dangerous permissions'). However, it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_rights_to_gpos' or 'route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_comps', which appear to route to specific node types rather than 'any node type'. The purpose is somewhat vague about what 'route' means operationally.

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. With many sibling tools that route similar entities to specific node types (e.g., to GPOs, computers, users), there's no indication of when 'any node type' routing is preferred over targeted routing. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other tools are mentioned.

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