list-dags

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a list of DAGs with metadata, but lacks explicit mention of read-only behavior, pagination semantics, or potential errors. It adds some context about returned fields but leaves gaps.

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 one-line summary is clear and front-loaded, but the Args block duplicates schema documentation, making it longer than necessary. The structure is organized but could be more concise.

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?

The description provides a basic summary and return type, but lacks details about pagination, optional environment_name fallback behavior, and error cases. For a list tool with six parameters and no output schema, it is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 provides descriptions for 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter names and meanings without adding significant new information. The inclusion of 'ctx' as an argument not present in the schema is a minor inconsistency.

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 'List all DAGs in an MWAA environment' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list-environments and get-dag by focusing on DAGs. The mention of returning metadata adds clarity.

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 the tool is for listing DAGs but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives. There is no reference to sibling tools or conditions when this is the best choice. The usage context is clear but implicit.

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