list_import_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'lists import errors' without mentioning pagination behavior, ordering, or any other operational traits, leaving the agent without important context.

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 fluff, but the '[Tool Role]' prefix is unnecessary. It is appropriately short for a simple list tool, though it lacks content.

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 description is too minimal for the tool's complexity. With no annotations, an output schema present, and a list operation, the description should at least indicate the scope of import errors (e.g., all DAGs) and relationship to other error-related tools. This gap makes the tool hard to use correctly.

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% for the two parameters (limit, offset). The description does not explain these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. Their standard names provide some intrinsic meaning, but no additional semantic value is added.

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 lists import errors in Airflow, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_import_error or all_dag_import_summary, but the plural 'list' and resource name provide adequate clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_import_error or all_dag_import_summary. The description gives no context about typical use cases or exclusions.

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