check_failed_dags

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks the last 24 hours and returns failed runs with dates. However, it does not mention side effects (though likely read-only), authorization requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. The core behavior is clear but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It is efficiently structured, front-loading the purpose and then providing detail on the return value.

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?

The description explains the return value (list of DAGs with execution dates), which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity. It does not detail the output schema format, but the context notes an output schema exists. For a check tool with no parameters, the description is adequately 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. No additional parameter information is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 checks for failed DAG runs in the last 24 hours and returns a list with execution dates. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'returns') and identifies the resource ('failed DAG runs'). The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_dags' or 'check_scheduler_health'.

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 implies usage when monitoring recent failures, but does not explicitly specify when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. It provides clear context for use but lacks exclusion criteria.

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