tigergraph__get_loading_jobs

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful scoping detail ('all loading jobs defined for the current graph'), but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or behavior when no loading jobs exist. This is acceptable for a simple read-only list tool but not richly transparent.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and includes scope in the same breath. Every word contributes meaning, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a low-complexity, read-only list tool with zero required parametershare, the description is complete enough. The input schema covers all parameter semantics, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description clarifies what is being listed and in what scope. No output schema exists, but the tool name and description make the return concept clear.

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 both parameters (profile and graph_name) are well documented in the input schema, including defaults and the list_connections hint. The tool description adds little beyond 'current graph,' so it correctly relies on the schema for parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 operation: 'Get a list of all loading jobs defined for the current graph.' It specifies the verb ('get'), the resource ('loading jobs'), and the scope ('current graph'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related sibling tools like get_loading_job_status, create_loading_job, or drop_loading_job.

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. It does not mention that get_loading_job_status is for a single job's status or that create/drop/run_loading_job tools are for other lifecycle stages. The schema's parameter descriptions give profile hints, but the tool description itself offers no when-to-use direction.

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