get_dag_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format (Dictionary with state/timing), but this is redundant given the tool has an output schema. Critically, it omits error behavior (what happens if the DAG run doesn't exist?), authentication requirements, and does not explicitly confirm the read-only nature of the operation.

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?

Well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly tautological param descriptions ('The DAG ID') but overall compact and readable.

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?

Adequate for basic usage: documents all required params (necessary due to 0% schema coverage) and mentions return content. However, given the lack of annotations, it should disclose error handling and authorization needs, which are missing. Also lacks explicit differentiation from sibling list/trigger tools.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The Args section in the description compensates by documenting all 3 parameters (environment_name, dag_id, dag_run_id), providing at least minimal semantic context for each (e.g., 'Name of the MWAA environment').

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?

States specific verb 'Get' and resource 'DAG run', and uses 'specific' to implicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'list_dag_runs'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'trigger_dag_run' or name them.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'list_dag_runs' (which retrieves multiple runs) or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., knowing the specific dag_run_id). No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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