list_ingestions

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 only states 'List ingestion jobs' with no mention of pagination, scope, safety, response format, or any behavioral traits beyond the verb. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 brief (three words), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks sentence structure and contextual framing. While there is no wasted text, it is not a model of well-structured documentation.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, a three-word description is insufficient. It does not explain what ingestion jobs are, the return value shape, or when to choose this over related list tools.

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 100%: both page and per_page have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema already documents the parameters adequately, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action ('List') and resource ('ingestion jobs'), providing basic purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools like list_bulk_jobs or list_meta_imports, but 'ingestion' identifies a distinct resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply names the operation without any usage direction.

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