list-task-instances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of task instances with states, start/end times, and execution details, which is useful. However, it omits behavioral traits such as pagination handling, potential errors, or permissions, and does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior beyond the verb 'List'.

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: a clear one-sentence summary followed by a brief output description and a tidy Args/Returns block. It is front-loaded and reasonably concise, though the Args section redundantly duplicates schema descriptions, preventing a perfect score.

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 list operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return content but leaves gaps: no mention of pagination, empty results, or how environment_name auto-detection works (though the schema provides that). It does not describe the structure of each task instance in the returned list, which would be valuable without an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description's Args section only repeats the parameter names and short descriptions from the schema, adding no additional semantic meaning. It does include 'ctx' as a non-schema parameter, but that is an implementation detail rather than useful parameter guidance.

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 explicitly states 'List task instances for a specific DAG run' with a concrete verb and resource, and further clarifies the scope by noting it returns all task instances within a DAG run. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get-task-instance (singular) or list-mapped-task-instances.

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 usage context ('for a specific DAG run') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list-mapped-task-instances or get-task-instance, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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