list_task_instances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation (implied read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by limit/offset parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, return format, or whether it's destructive. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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?

Extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose. There's no wasted text, 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 the complexity (17 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the rich filtering options, return values, or operational behavior. For a tool with many parameters and no structured documentation, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'dag_id' and 'dag_run_id', ignoring 15 other parameters (e.g., date ranges, state, pool, limit/offset). No parameter semantics, formats, or examples are provided, leaving most inputs 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('task instances'), specifying filtering by 'DAG ID and DAG run ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_task_instance' (singular) and 'list_task_instance_tries', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from broader listing tools like 'get_dag_runs'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid DAG IDs), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'get_task_instance' (for single instance) or 'list_task_instance_tries' (for retry details).

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