server_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it does communicate that this is a non-mutating status read and names the returned data groups. It says nothing about failure behavior (e.g. when the server is unreachable) or cost/latency, which are the traits an agent would most want for a health probe.

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?

A single compact clause, front-loaded with the resource and then the returned fields; no filler. The fragmentary 'which server' phrasing is slightly telegraphic but does not cost 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 an output schema present, the description needn't spell out return shapes, and with no inputs there is no parameter burden. The only gap is behavioral edge cases (unreachable server, authentication), which a status tool would ideally mention.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter semantics are missing.

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 the resource (ComfyUI server) and enumerates exactly what the tool surfaces: which server, version, GPU/free VRAM, and queue length. That enumeration makes it clearly distinct from the workflow/model/job siblings, though the verb ('get'/'report') is left implicit.

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 inferable but never stated: an agent can guess this is the diagnostic/health-check call before or during workflow runs, but there is no explicit 'use when' phrasing or mention of any alternative tool. For a zero-parameter status endpoint that is likely acceptable, hence the implied-usage 3 rather than lower.

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