list_dag_warnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It states it returns warnings and lists the fields, but omits details like whether it is read-only, required permissions, or potential rate limits. The output schema reduces the burden slightly.

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 fairly verbose with bullet-like examples and listing return fields. It could be more concise while maintaining clarity. The structure is functional but not optimized.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the output fields and use cases adequately. It could mention whether warnings are cumulative or from a specific time period.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter info. It correctly derives a baseline of 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 retrieves warnings and issues from DAG definitions. The usage examples explicitly list user queries that map to this tool, distinguishing it from siblings like list_dag_runs or list_import_errors.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios with natural language examples. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or explicitly compare to alternatives like list_import_errors.

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