get_dag_edges

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return all DAG edges', which implies a read operation, but it does not state whether it is read-only, safe, or requires specific permissions. No additional behaviors (e.g., pagination, ordering) are mentioned.

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 a single sentence that is concise and free of filler. While it could include more details, it is appropriately short and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic action of returning DAG edges. However, it does not specify what information the edges contain or how they are structured, making it just minimally complete.

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 it does not. The sole parameter 'run_id' is not described beyond its name and type in the schema. The description only vaguely says 'for a run', adding no semantic value.

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 'Return all DAG edges for a run' clearly states the verb (Return) and resource (DAG edges) with scope ('for a run'), making the purpose obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_run' or 'get_task' which operate on different entities, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a user should call it instead of 'validate_dag_acyclic' or other DAG-related tools. The description lacks context or exclusions.

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