airflow_list_dags

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: pagination via limit/offset, parameter coercion, mutual exclusivity of instance and ui_url, error payload structure, and return schema. This goes beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with sections for parameters and returns. It is informative but slightly verbose; each sentence adds value. Could be marginally more concise.

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?

Given the output schema existence and rich annotations, the description covers return format and error handling. However, it does not explicitly clarify when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., airflow_get_dag), leaving a minor gap in contextual completeness.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter (defaults, accepted types, coercion rules, mutual exclusivity). This provides clear semantics that the schema alone does not convey.

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 DAGs with pause state and UI link for a target instance. It distinguishes the basic listing function from sibling tools like airflow_get_dag (retrieves a single DAG) and airflow_list_dag_runs, but does not explicitly differentiate its scope.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify that this is for obtaining an overview of all DAGs or compare to other listing tools. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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