get-dag

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns DAG details, but does not mention error behavior (e.g., if the DAG is not found), permissions needed, or whether it is a read-only operation. For a 'get' tool this is a partial gap, but it still relies heavily on the inferred safety of the verb.

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 structured with a clear opening sentence, but it is padded with a docstring-style args/returns section that largely duplicates the schema. The inclusion of the undocumented 'ctx' parameter adds unnecessary noise, making it less concise than it could be.

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 read tool with full schema coverage, the description provides a reasonable summary of what is returned. However, without an output schema or explicit mention of edge cases, it is only minimally complete. The generic return type 'CallToolResult' is not further detailed.

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 schema covers all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description fails to add value beyond the schema. It lists the same parameters and even introduces a non-existent 'ctx' parameter, which is misleading and reduces clarity.

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 specifies the action (get details) and the resource (a specific DAG), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-dags (which lists DAGs) and get-dag-source (which retrieves source code). The mention of returning schedule, owners, tags, and configuration gives a concrete scope.

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 use when you need metadata for a specific DAG, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list-dags or get-dag-source. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, so it is only implied.

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