get_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the read-only GET semantics via the endpoint, the return payload fields (prompt_id, status, outputs/filenames, elapsed), and the COMFYUI_HOST prerequisite. It stops short of noting ordering, retention, or whether history is cleared, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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: what it does, what it returns, when to reach for it, and the environment prerequisite. No filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded before the usage rationale.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description still tells the agent what comes back (prompt_id, status, outputs, elapsed), the environment requirement, and the exact recovery scenario it serves. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the single limit parameter is already documented with its default and 1-50 bounds. The description reinforces its meaning with "Returns last N prompts," tying the parameter to ordering of results, which is a small but real addition over the schema.

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 ComfyUI execution history") and even names the underlying endpoint GET /history, plus the no-prompt_id scope. This clearly distinguishes it from execute_workflow_sync and get_execution_status, which return a single run's state rather than a recent-history listing.

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 a concrete triggering condition: use when execute_workflow_sync did not return a prompt_id (e.g. WebSocket timeout) to recover the latest run's outputs. It names the sibling and the failure scenario it compensates for, though it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g. prefer get_execution_status when you already have a prompt_id).

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