get_dag

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 states 'Get a DAG by ID', implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value includes (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with just four words, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'get' returns, how to interpret results, or handle errors, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns complex DAG data in a server with many related operations.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't add any meaning beyond the parameter name 'dag_id'. It doesn't explain what a DAG ID is, its format, or where to find it, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Get a DAG by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (DAG), but it's vague about what 'get' entails—whether it retrieves metadata, configuration, or status. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_dag_details' or 'get_dag_source', which might provide more specific information about the same DAG.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_dag_details', 'get_dag_source', and 'fetch_dags', the description lacks any indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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