tigergraph__get_loading_job_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds the specific-ID scoping but nothing else about response behavior, absent-job errors, or polling semantics that would go beyond the schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential action and target resource immediately.

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 a rich input schema and safety annotations, the tool is simple enough that the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and no statement about what the returned status looks like or how to obtain a valid job_id, leaving some inference needed.

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%, and the schema already documents job_id, profile, and graph_name. The description's 'by its job ID' only echoes the required parameter without adding format, source, or relationship details.

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 verb and resource: get the status of a specific loading job by job ID. It distinguishes from the plural get_loading_jobs tool by emphasizing a single, ID-addressed job, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided; the description only restates the operation. It does not mention that get_loading_jobs should be used to list jobs or to discover a job_id, nor any prerequisite such as the job having been created/run.

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