get_dag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'details', failing to disclose the nature or scope of returned data. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still provides no additional behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, e.g., by mentioning output nature.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only, output schema exists), the description is adequate but lacks usage and behavioral context. It does not cover when to prefer this over sibling 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the dag_id parameter. The description only says 'by dag_id' without explaining the parameter's format, allowed values, or expected usage. For a single required parameter, this minimal addition is insufficient.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'single DAG's details', and the key parameter 'dag_id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_dags (which lists all DAGs) and get_dag_run (which retrieves a DAG run).

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 like get_dag_run or list_dags. The description implies usage when a specific dag_id is known, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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