dag_run_duration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a high-level purpose and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what output format to expect, how the limit parameter affects results, or any error/permission considerations. This lack of detail leaves an agent uncertain about side effects and return structure.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose effectively. While it could include more detail, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool and does not waste words.

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?

The tool has a simple two-parameter schema and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, and it does not clarify what specific performance metrics are analyzed. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent deciding when and how to use it.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not explicitly clarify dag_id or limit. It implicitly identifies dag_id as the DAG to analyze but leaves limit completely unaddressed. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, yet the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 analyzes DAG run durations and performance metrics, using a specific verb ('Analyzes') and resource ('DAG run durations'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like dag_task_duration by focusing on DAG runs rather than individual tasks, though the phrase 'performance metrics' is somewhat generic.

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 dag_task_duration. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. The only implied usage comes from the tool name and purpose, but no direct recommendation is given.

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