get_dag_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the return format (JSON with counts by state) and the optional filtering. However, it omits details like time range, whether it's real-time or historical, permission requirements, or any rate limits. The description is adequate but not exhaustive, scoring a 3.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, bullet-pointed use cases, a list of return states, and an Args/Returns section. It is comprehensive yet concise, with every sentence contributing value. No wasted words.

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?

Given the output schema exists (though not shown) and the tool has only one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter, and return structure comprehensively. It leaves no obvious gaps for agent decision-making, earning a 5.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds significant value by explaining the dag_ids parameter: it's optional, filters to specific DAGs, and defaults to all DAGs. This goes beyond the schema's simple type definition, earning a 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 it gets statistics about DAG runs, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'DAG runs' (aggregate stats). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dag_details (single DAG) and get_dag_run (single run) by focusing on aggregate state counts. The use cases list further clarifies its role.

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 explicitly lists example queries that should trigger this tool (health, success/failure counts, summary, etc.), providing clear context. It does not mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives directly, but the implied scope is clear given the sibling tools, so it's slightly below a 5.

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