fetch_dags

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Fetch all DAGs' implies a read operation but provides no behavioral context about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters), what 'fetch' actually returns, or whether this is a safe operation. The description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits beyond the minimal implication of retrieval.

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 maximally concise at just three words. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. The structure is simple and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and numerous sibling alternatives, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, how to use its filtering parameters, when to choose it over other DAG retrieval tools, or any behavioral considerations for a read operation in this system.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description 'Fetch all DAGs' provides no parameter semantics whatsoever. It doesn't mention any of the filtering capabilities (limit, offset, tags, only_active, paused, dag_id_pattern, order_by) that the schema reveals, nor does it explain what 'all' means in relation to these parameters.

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 'Fetch all DAGs' states the basic action (fetch) and resource (DAGs), but it's vague about scope and functionality. It doesn't specify what 'all' means in context of the 7 filtering parameters available, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_dag', 'get_dag_details', or 'get_dag_stats' which also retrieve DAG information.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 7 sibling tools that also retrieve DAG-related information (get_dag, get_dag_details, get_dag_stats, etc.), the description offers no context about when this list-fetching approach is appropriate versus more targeted retrieval methods.

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