get_instance_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the relocation block reports whether COMFYUI_MOUNT_DIR is set and writable, and what the consequence is when it is not. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 short and front-loads the concrete output fields before giving the call-order and relocation caveat. Every sentence earns its keep, though the final sentence could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 inputs and an output schema, the description only needs to clarify when to call the tool and what to do with a critical result. It does both, including concrete reasons for checking relocation readiness before starting render work.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate. There are no parameters for the description to document, and it correctly focuses on what the returned metadata means.

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 enumerates the exact data returned: ComfyUI version, OS, VRAM, queue length, and render-relocation readiness, and additionally says to call it first. This is clear even though it lacks a full verb phrase, and the 'Call first' instruction gives it a distinct role among siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call this tool first, and before spending a render, surface the relocation readiness issue to the user. It does not explicitly name or exclude alternatives, so it misses the highest level of routing context.

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