get_error_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the data source ('ComfyUI history status.messages'), the prerequisite ('Requires COMFYUI_HOST'), and the shape of the returned error structure. It doesn't explicitly confirm read-only behavior or what happens if the prompt has no errors recorded, which keeps this below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose with return fields first, usage triggers second, source/prerequisite third. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical field list is slightly dense.

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 one-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, triggers, return fields, data source, and an environment prerequisite. Only edge-case behavior (no recorded errors, missing history) is unaddressed.

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 the single prompt_id parameter is documented as coming from execute_workflow or execute_workflow_sync. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get full error details for a prompt') and enumerates what comes back (node_id, exception_type, exception_message, full traceback). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_execution_status and get_history, which report status rather than per-node failure detail.

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?

Gives concrete triggers: 'Use when execute_workflow_sync failed or get_execution_status shows errors.' That is a clear when-to-use with named sibling tools. It doesn't state when NOT to use it (e.g., for successful runs or for queue-level failures handled by list_queue), so it stops short of a 5.

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