airflow_describe_instance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description adds value by stating 'never secrets' and detailing the return structure. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral context (no secrets exposed, error format).

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?

Description is concise (three short sections: purpose, parameter, returns). Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and explicit return and error specifications, the description is complete. The output schema is effectively described in text, and no additional context is needed.

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 only parameter 'instance' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by calling it an 'instance key' and providing an example ('data-stg'), which clarifies what the string represents.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'describe a configured Airflow instance (host + metadata, never secrets)'. The verb 'describe' and resource 'Airflow instance' are specific, and the distinction from sibling tools (which deal with DAGs, runs, tasks) is clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it differs from other describe/list tools (e.g., airflow_get_dag, airflow_list_instances).

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