route_priv_users_sessions_to_non_priv_comps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. 'Route' suggests a potential mutation or redirection operation, but it doesn't clarify if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. The '[Required: sessions]' hint is the only behavioral insight, which is insufficient for a tool that likely performs security-related routing.

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 the core action, though the bracketed note could be integrated more smoothly. It avoids unnecessary elaboration but risks under-specification given the tool's likely complexity.

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 lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and the tool's name suggesting a security-oriented routing operation, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'routing' entails, the implications, or what results to expect, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. The single parameter 'domain' is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving its purpose, format, or constraints unclear. The description mentions 'sessions' but not how it relates to the 'domain' parameter.

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 action ('Route') and target resources ('privileged user(s) with sessions to non-privileged computer(s)'), but is vague about what 'route' means operationally. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on routing sessions rather than listing or finding, but lacks specificity about the routing mechanism or outcome.

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: sessions]' which implies a prerequisite, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'route_all_sessions_to_computers' or 'list_all_user_sessions'. No context about domain selection or comparison to other routing tools is given.

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