lingie_run_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it. It discloses the default blocking wait, ~20-second auto-degradation to run_id, ~30-second MCP host timeout, background continuation, and the side effect that canceling interrupts the local engine's current task.

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 dense sentences cover submission, waiting, timeout degradation, background continuation, immediate mode, and cancellation. The core action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 complex async execution tool with no annotations, this description is complete: it tells the agent what results to expect, when to fall back, how to avoid losing results to timeouts, and how to cancel. The absence of an output schema is compensated by explicitly stating that local output paths or a run_id are returned.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining wait semantics beyond the schema, mentioning LINGIE_MCP_MAX_BLOCK_MS tuning, and tying params to lingie_workflow_capabilities parameter names with submission_hint formats.

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 states a specific verb and resource: executing a workflow in the local ComfyUI engine. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting submission behavior with lingie_run_result polling and lingie_cancel_run cancellation.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool and when to use alternatives: submit with run_workflow, poll with lingie_run_result after background degradation, cancel with lingie_cancel_run. It also covers the wait=false immediate-return mode.

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