get_instance_status

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses the return structure: healthy boolean, daemons list with fields, queued_runs_count with interpretation, and code_location_errors. Explains health condition (all daemons healthy AND no errors).

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?

Concise and well-structured: one-line purpose, bulleted return fields, and explicit when-to-use guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking parameter documentation, the description thoroughly explains the tool's output and usage patterns. With an output schema present (per context), the return format is well covered. Missing env description is a minor gap.

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 only parameter 'env' is not mentioned in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and default. The description fails to explain its purpose or impact.

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?

Clearly defines the tool as retrieving a global health check of the Dagster instance. States 'START HERE for any monitoring workflow,' distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific jobs, runs, or assets.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'as the FIRST call in any diagnostic or monitoring flow.' Provides follow-up steps if healthy=false, guiding the agent to check daemons and code_location_errors.

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