all_dag_import_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it provides a summary, without detailing whether it aggregates across all DAGs, how the summary is structured, or whether it is a read-only operation. The lack of detail about the summary's nature makes it difficult for an agent to predict the tool's exact behavior.

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 unnecessary words. The '[Tool Role]' prefix is a minor label but does not detract from the conciseness. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description is mostly adequate for basic invocation. However, it does not clarify how the summary differs from list_import_errors or whether it is a high-level aggregate, which reduces completeness for an agent making a selection decision.

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 there is nothing for the description to document beyond what the schema already conveys. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics.

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 states it provides a summary of import errors across all DAGs, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_import_errors (which lists errors) and all_dag_event_summary (which summarizes events), though the term 'summary' could be more explicit about whether it aggregates counts or lists error categories.

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_import_errors or all_dag_event_summary. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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