dagster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what each action does (e.g., 'recent runs', 'run details'), but lacks critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether actions are read-only or destructive. The examples imply read operations but don't explicitly state safety.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with a brief purpose statement followed by action examples. Each sentence earns its place by illustrating usage, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) and the initial line is somewhat vague.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers actions and some parameters but misses details on return values, error cases, and full parameter semantics. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral and contextual information is needed for effective use.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains what each action does and provides example parameter combinations (e.g., 'runs' with 'status', 'run' with 'id'), clarifying how parameters interact. However, it doesn't cover all 7 parameters (e.g., 'job', 'limit', 'variables' are unexplained), so it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 states the tool is for 'Dagster runs & debugging' and lists five actions, which gives a general purpose but lacks specificity about what Dagster is or what resources it operates on. It distinguishes between actions but doesn't clearly articulate the overall tool's function beyond listing sub-actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, as there are no sibling tools mentioned. It lists actions with examples but doesn't explain prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage.

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