running_dags

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that the tool lists all currently running DAG runs, which is a read-only operation. For a simple list tool with no parameters, this is sufficiently transparent. It could mention performance implications or that no authentication is needed, but the core behavior is clear.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without any waste.

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 the tool is simple (zero parameters, clear output), the description is adequate for an agent to understand its purpose. However, with many sibling tools, a brief note on when to prefer this over 'list_dags' or 'failed_dags' would improve completeness. The output schema exists, so return values are defined elsewhere.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The input schema is empty and fully covered (100%), so no additional meaning is required.

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 lists all currently running DAG runs in the Airflow cluster. It uses a specific verb ('Lists'), specific resource ('running DAG runs'), and scope ('currently running'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_dags' (lists all DAGs) and 'failed_dags' (lists failed runs).

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, such as 'list_dags' or 'failed_dags'. There is no explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and purpose alone.

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