get_dag_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Get DAG stats' implies a read-only operation but fails to specify critical details: whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or what format the output takes (e.g., JSON, summary statistics). This lack of transparency leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 three words, which could be seen as efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized, as it lacks essential details needed for effective tool use. While front-loaded, it does not earn its place by adding value beyond the minimal statement.

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 tool's complexity (inferred from sibling tools involving DAG operations), lack of annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover what stats are retrieved, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly in context.

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 (dag_ids) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description 'Get DAG stats' does not mention parameters at all, failing to explain what dag_ids is (e.g., a list of DAG identifiers to filter stats), its optional nature, or how null values are handled. This leaves the parameter's purpose and usage completely undocumented.

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 DAG stats' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'DAG stats', but provides no details about what 'stats' entails (e.g., performance metrics, status counts, runtime information) or how it differs from sibling tools like get_dag, get_dag_details, or get_dag_runs. This leaves the purpose vague and indistinguishable from related tools.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for monitoring, debugging, or reporting, or how it compares to siblings like get_dag_runs or get_dag_details. Without such information, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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