route_principals_to_azure_vm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'azurehound' as a requirement but doesn't describe what the tool actually does (e.g., finds paths, enumerates permissions, performs analysis), what output to expect, or any operational characteristics like performance or side effects. The [WIP] tag further indicates incomplete information.

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 (two short phrases) but includes a [WIP] tag that adds noise without value. The first phrase states the purpose, the second states a requirement - both relevant but the overall structure is minimal and could be more polished for clarity.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a [WIP] designation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'route' means in this context, what results to expect, or how this differs from other routing tools. The azurehound requirement is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing operational 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there's no parameter documentation burden. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for this situation is 4 since the schema fully covers the empty parameter set.

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 'Route from principal(s) to Azure VM' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'route' means operationally. The [WIP] tag indicates it's incomplete, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling route_* tools like 'route_principals_to_azure_apps_and_sps' or 'route_principals_to_global_administrators'.

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 includes a prerequisite 'Required: azurehound' which provides some usage context, but it doesn't explain when to use this specific routing tool versus other routing alternatives in the sibling list. The guidance is implied rather than explicit about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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