tigergraph__get_loading_jobs

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

The phrase 'Get a list' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly mention side effects, error behavior, or required permissions. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, and this information is not provided.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and to the point.

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?

The description states what the tool does but does not indicate the output format (e.g., job names, statuses) or any prerequisites such as graph existence. Given the absence of an output schema, this missing detail may leave the agent uncertain about the returned data.

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?

Both parameters (profile, graph_name) have clear descriptions in the schema, but the tool description itself adds no additional context about how these parameters affect the result. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('list of all loading jobs'), and the scope ('current graph'). It is unambiguous and matches the tool name.

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 related tools such as tigergraph__get_loading_job_status or tigergraph__create_loading_job. It lacks explicit alternatives or conditions for use.

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