get_dag_status

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. It does communicate that the result is the 'latest known' state, hinting at possible staleness, but it does not state whether the tool errors on unknown DAG IDs, whether it is read-only, or any rate/freshness behavior. The one-line description is insufficient for transparent behavioral expectations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It states the core action and object efficiently, earning its place without filler.

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 is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks any usage context, alternatives, or error/edge-case behavior, and the sole parameter is undocumented. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps for an agent deciding when to call 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for 'dag_id', and the description does not explain the parameter beyond implying it identifies a DAG. However, the parameter name 'dag_id' is quite self-explanatory, and there is only one required parameter, so the meaning is reasonably recoverable though not explicitly documented.

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 a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('a DAG'), and what is returned ('the latest known state'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_dags' by focusing on a single DAG's status rather than listing DAGs, though it does not explicitly name the distinction.

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 'list_dags', 'health', or 'search_etl_logs'. The phrase 'Return the latest known state' weakly implies querying a specific DAG's status, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion to steer an agent.

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