route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_rights_to_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions '[HIGH RAM]', hinting at high resource usage, which adds some context. However, it fails to describe critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. The description is insufficient 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 brief and front-loaded with key terms, avoiding unnecessary words. However, the inclusion of '[HIGH RAM]' without explanation adds minor clutter, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it is concise but could be more structured with clearer separation of elements.

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 high resource usage, along with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output, and security context, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an 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?

The input schema has one parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. This leaves the parameter's meaning, format, or usage completely undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema gap and hindering correct invocation.

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 'Route non-privileged user(s) with dangerous rights to user(s) [HIGH RAM]' includes a verb ('Route') and resources ('non-privileged user(s) with dangerous rights' and 'user(s)'), but it is vague about what 'Route' entails (e.g., mapping, analyzing, or transferring rights) and does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_permissions' or 'route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_comps'. This leaves the purpose ambiguous beyond basic action and targets.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, such as those involving different targets (e.g., 'to_comps' or 'to_gpos'). Without this, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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