dag_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies a read operation through 'retrieves,' but does not disclose whether special permissions are required (source code may contain secrets), what the response format is (though an output schema exists), or any error behavior. It adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 core sentence is concise and front-loaded, containing no redundant words. However, the '[Tool Role]:' prefix is unnecessary metadata that adds noise without conveying information. Overall, the description is efficient but could have used the space to add meaning.

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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is bare minimum. It fails to clarify what 'source code' means (e.g., raw Python file vs. serialized representation), how it relates to sibling DAG tools, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot confidently decide when to invoke this tool over get_dag or dag_graph.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. 'Specified DAG' merely restates the parameter name 'dag_id' from the schema. It does not clarify what constitutes a valid dag_id, how to obtain it, or any format expectations, leaving the agent entirely dependent on the schema's minimal type info.

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 uses the specific verb 'retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'the source code for the specified DAG,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_dag (likely DAG metadata) and dag_graph (graph structure). Though 'source code' could be more precise, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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. It does not mention related tools like get_dag or list_dags, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name and schemas.

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