airflow-list-dags

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

The description adds behavioral context not in the schema, such as 'active by default', which is useful. However, it does not disclose other important traits like rate limits, return format, or read-only nature, which are critical given no 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and key features. Every word serves a clear purpose with no redundancy.

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?

The description lacks completeness for a list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema. It does not mention response structure, pagination limits, or how results are ordered, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description paraphrases parameter capabilities (optional tag filter, dag_id search) without adding meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action (List), resource (Airflow DAGs), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning default active filtering, tag filter, and dag_id substring search. It is specific and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies use for listing DAGs, it does not mention when to use it over sibling tools like 'dag-health-rollup' or when not to use it.

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