get_execution_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose real traits: a WebSocket channel with polling fallback, plus the required COMFYUI_HOST environment dependency. It doesn't say whether the call blocks, how often to poll, or what a failed/unknown prompt_id returns.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the returned fields and then the environment prerequisite. The parenthetical transport note is compressed rather than rambling; no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so enumerating status/current_node/progress%/queue_position/outputs is genuinely necessary and is provided. But for a progress-polling tool with zero annotations, the description should also cover invocation cadence and terminal-state behavior, which it omits.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including that the id comes from execute_workflow or execute_workflow_sync. The description adds nothing about prompt_id syntax or format, so the schema does all the work — baseline 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?

States a concrete verb+resource: 'Get real-time execution progress for a prompt.' That is distinguishable from list_queue or get_history, but it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling get_execution_status, leaving the agent to guess which status tool to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'real-time' and the WebSocket/polling note hint that this is for tracking a run in flight, but there is no explicit 'use this while executing, use get_execution_status when...' guidance. The env prerequisite (COMFYUI_HOST) is a useful condition but is not a when-to-use rule.

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