get_dag_runs_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List DAG runs (batch)' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's paginated (though parameters suggest it might be), rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, this is critically insufficient.

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 at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, it meets the criteria for efficient structure without 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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what DAG runs are, how batch differs from non-batch, what parameters mean, what the tool returns, or any behavioral traits. This leaves the agent unable to use the tool effectively.

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 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only parameter names and types without any semantic meaning. The description adds absolutely nothing about what any parameter does (e.g., what 'dag_ids', 'execution_date_gte', or 'state' represent), leaving all parameters completely undocumented. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'List DAG runs (batch)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_dag_runs_batch' with minimal elaboration. While it indicates the action (list) and resource (DAG runs), it lacks specificity about what DAG runs are or what 'batch' entails compared to the sibling tool 'get_dag_runs'. This provides only basic purpose without meaningful differentiation.

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. With a sibling tool named 'get_dag_runs' (without 'batch'), there's a clear opportunity to explain the difference, but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context for choosing between them. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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