report_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it discloses that the tool performs no file operation, makes no network call, and returns a fixed notice. That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs to avoid false expectations.

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?

The critical status ('ARCHIVED') and the core behavior ('files NOTHING') are front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. It runs slightly long with redundant restatement of the notice behavior, keeping it just short of perfect.

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 deprecated 7-parameter stub with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains that all inputs are ignored, why the parameters persist, what is returned, and where to go instead. No gap remains that would mislead a caller.

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 every property is already annotated 'Ignored.' The description reinforces that nothing is acted upon, but adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 precisely what the tool does: it files nothing, contacts no service, and returns a notice pointing elsewhere. The 'ARCHIVED' framing plus the explicit 'files NOTHING' makes it unmistakable against active siblings like comfy_cli or node_pack.

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?

It gives explicit when/when-not guidance: use it only so legacy prompts and skills receive a clear answer instead of an unknown-tool error, and it names the real alternatives (Comfy Agent / Comfy MCP by Comfy-Org). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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