check_setup

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

Even with annotations declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, the description adds behavioral context beyond them: it never raises, a down instance is a failed check rather than an error, and it explains the gate ('ok gates on ComfyUI reachable') and soft checks ('relocation is a soft check surfaced via hint'). This is substantial value beyond the annotations.

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 dense but efficient: three sentences cover purpose, usage guidance, behavioral guarantee, and return shape. It front-loads the core diagnostic role and avoids fluff, 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?

With no parameters and a rich output schema, the description still provides the non-obvious context: what the checks mean, how to interpret the response gates, and how it behaves on a down instance. Combined with the annotations and output schema, an agent has everything needed to correctly invoke and interpret this tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so no parameter semantics are needed. The description adds meaning by detailing what the diagnostic checks and how the results are structured, which effectively covers the absence of parameters.

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 tool is a 'one-shot setup diagnostic' and enumerates the exact three checks: ComfyUI reachability, render handoff via COMFYUI_MOUNT_DIR, and partner-node key presence. It explicitly contrasts itself with get_instance_info, making the agent able to discriminate the tool from siblings without inspecting the schema.

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?

It says both what the tool is for ('fresh install or a sandboxed client (Cowork/Desktop/Code)') and gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'run it first when a render can't be delivered or the instance seems unreachable.' It also provides an exclusion by contrasting with get_instance_info, which raises on a down instance.

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