get-import-errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'gets' and 'returns' errors, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose that it makes no modifications, does not list any side effects, or describe behavior when environment is missing. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the function name.

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 a clear opening sentence, a brief purpose statement, and an Args section. However, the Args section is redundant with the schema and adds length without new information. Still, it is concise overall and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value. It only says 'CallToolResult with import errors', which is vague and does not describe the structure of the errors (e.g., filename, error message, severity). Without annotations or an output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to reliably interpret the result.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description's Args section largely repeats the schema descriptions (e.g., 'AWS region override', 'AWS CLI profile name override') without adding new meaning. The schema also provides additional detail about environment_name auto-detection that the description omits, so the description adds no semantic value.

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 'Get DAG import errors in an MWAA environment' with a specific verb and resource. It further explains it returns 'a list of import/parsing errors for DAG files', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-dags and get-dag.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Useful for diagnosing why DAGs are not appearing or are broken.' This gives context on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection.

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