get_import_errors

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

Discloses the tool reads from the scheduler's recorded errors and returns specific fields (filename, stack_trace, timestamp, import_error_id). No annotations are provided, so no contradictions; description adequately covers read-only nature.

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?

Two concise paragraphs: first defines purpose, second gives usage context and parameter description. No redundant sentences, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return fields. Despite not detailing error handling or authentication, the output schema existence reduces the need for return value explanation; overall sufficient for a straightforward list tool.

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 description explains both parameters (limit and offset) beyond the schema, noting default values and their purpose for pagination. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates.

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 clearly states the tool lists DAG import errors, a specific type of parse failure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_run_status or list_dags by focusing on import errors as a debugging resource for missing DAGs.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use: 'when a DAG you just wrote isn't showing up' due to import errors. Provides context that it's the primary debugging tool, but does not mention alternative tools or exclusions.

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