dagster_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the result set and a fixed cap of 10 runs, which implies a bounded read-only aggregate, but it never states that the call is read-only, how expensive it is, or how page_size interacts with the fixed run limit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the scope first and then enumerates contents. No filler, though the enumeration style leaves no room for the usage or parameter context the definition needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description covers what is aggregated. However, with zero annotations and an undocumented parameter, an agent still lacks the read-only confirmation and the meaning of page_size needed to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter (page_size, default 50) is never mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no guidance on what it paginates — the job list? the backfills? — especially given the text hard-codes '10 derniers runs'. The description leaves the only parameter fully opaque.

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 a specific resource (the Dagster instance) and enumerates exactly what the aggregate contains: repository name, jobs, last 10 runs, backfills, and active schedules. That makes it distinguishable from the narrower siblings (dagster_list_runs, dagster_sensors_schedules), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Vue d'ensemble' — an agent can infer this is the cheap first call before drilling into dagster_run_detail or dagster_asset_state. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must reason about routing on its own.

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