route_principals_to_global_administrators

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 'Route' which suggests a query or analysis operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. The [WIP] tag indicates missing details, making it inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with two parts: the routing statement and the prerequisite note. However, the [WIP] tag and lack of complete sentences reduce its effectiveness. It's somewhat efficient but under-specified, not fully earning its place as a clear, standalone description.

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 'route' operations in sibling tools, no annotations, no output schema, and the [WIP] tag, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively. This is inadequate for a tool in this domain.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is acceptable in this case. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the parameter semantics, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 principal(s) with Global Administrator permissions' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'route' means operationally (e.g., find paths, list relationships). The [WIP] tag indicates it's incomplete, and it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_from_owned_enabled_principals_to_high_value_targets' or 'route_principals_to_azure_apps_and_sps'. This is better than a tautology but lacks specificity.

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 'Required: azurehound' which implies a prerequisite tool or context for usage, providing some guidance. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other 'route_' tools) or any exclusions. The guidance is implied but not explicit, falling short of clear contextual instructions.

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