dag_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but no details are provided about auth requirements, error behavior, pagination, or what exactly the task graph contains. The description adds minimal 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 description is a single sentence and is easy to parse. However, the prefix '[Tool Role]:' is unnecessary filler that adds no meaningful information, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema available, the description is mostly adequate. It states the core purpose, and the output schema likely documents the return shape. However, it could be improved by mentioning what 'task graph structure' includes or how it relates to sibling tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter dag_id. The description's phrase 'specified DAG' loosely maps to dag_id but does not explain format, constraints, or how the ID is used to locate the graph. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some extent, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 'Retrieves task graph structure for the specified DAG,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_dag and list_tasks by focusing on the graph structure rather than general DAG details or task listing.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_dag, list_tasks, or dag_code. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or suggested alternatives, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria beyond the tool's name.

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