I agree. It pains me that I have to ask them. The ones my company does are very restrictive and high pressure. I personally try to choose reasonable problems with realistic scenarios (especially when interviewing entry level folks). I also have lots of follow up questions that I like to think are well grounded on realism.

I personally give a complete pass for stuff like standard library functions and will outright tell the candidate about an available function if they're unsure what it's called or how its used. I'm testing problem solving and an understanding of language , fundamentals not their ability to memorize a standard library. I mean, heck, I can't begin to count how many times I've had to google "[language] sort list".

Honestly, it sucks to have to watch a candidate struggle. It's awkward and not fun. I want to see the candidate do well. And heck, if they can't do well, I want them to at least be able to make progress, because I know it would feel bad to feel like you bombed the interview. Sadly, the environment of tech interviews isn't conductive to that. They're stressful and sometimes perfectly qualified candidates do poorly simply because of nerves.