Comfy wallet jobs

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is free to spend its words on auth mechanics — and it does: COMFY_SESSION is forwarded only on stdio, HTTP yields 401, and the engine validates that the address matches the session. That is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema. It stops short of describing result shape or limits.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is dense (parenthetical transport caveat plus authorization rule) but every clause carries operative information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a 'job record' contains, whether results are paginated, or how many come back — and it says none of that. Auth behavior is well covered; return-shape and volume are not.

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 coverage is 100% for the single address parameter, so baseline would be 3. The description adds real semantics the schema lacks: the address must match the session's owner, meaning a mismatched address fails rather than returning empty. That constraint meaningfully changes how an agent picks a value.

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?

States the resource and scope precisely: 'Private commercial job records for the owner wallet' — an agent knows it returns job data scoped to a wallet. The verb is implied rather than stated (read/list), and the distinction from siblings comfy_tasks/comfy_task ('jobs' vs 'tasks') is left ambiguous, which matters in this family.

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?

Provides an important operational precondition (stdio-only session forwarding; 401 over --http) that tells the agent how to call it successfully. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus the closely named comfy_tasks or comfy_task, so selection guidance against siblings is absent.

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