dag_task_duration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool reads task durations, but fails to disclose key traits such as whether it is read-only, idempotent, or requires specific permissions. The description also does not mention any side effects or limitations (e.g., handling of missing data).

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it is overly terse and lacks any structural elements (e.g., sections for usage, parameters). While every sentence earns its place, there is room to add critical information without sacrificing conciseness.

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 that the tool has a simple purpose and an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the context of a DAG run or how the tool handles multiple runs. The lack of parameter explanations and usage guidance makes it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter explanations. The description does not compensate by explaining the purpose or usage of 'dag_id' and 'dag_run_id'. Without this, an agent cannot understand what values to provide or how the parameters affect behavior.

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 the tool's function: 'Analyzes task durations within a DAG run.' It uses a specific verb ('Analyzes') and a specific resource ('task durations within a DAG run'), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dag_run_duration' (which analyzes total DAG run duration) and 'list_tasks' (which lists tasks without duration analysis).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or restrictions. For example, it does not clarify that it requires an existing DAG run or how it differs from similar tools like 'dag_run_duration'. This lack of usage context hampers agent decision-making.

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