list_dag_runs

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return format, fields, and sorting (most recent). However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or performance implications.

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 with bullet points for use cases and a clear list of return fields. It is front-loaded with purpose and every sentence adds 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?

Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is fairly complete, explaining return fields and sorting. However, it lacks mention of pagination or limits, which would be useful for a 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the output format and fields, which helps understand the tool's behavior even without parameters.

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 retrieves execution history and status of DAG runs, lists specific user intents, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_dag_run (which retrieves a single run) and diagnose_dag_run.

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 use cases (e.g., 'show me recent runs', 'which runs failed/succeeded?') and implies context. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_dag_run for single runs.

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