get_environment

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it retrieves system stats and local probes, and degrades gracefully when local data is unavailable. This is thorough for a read-only informational tool, though it does not mention authentication or network effects.

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 description is concise, using two well-structured sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and key details, and the second efficiently covers the degradation behavior. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully captures all essential information: what it does, what it returns, and how it handles missing data. It is complete for its minimal complexity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description provides all necessary semantics by detailing the output contents (OS, Python, ComfyUI version, GPU/VRAM, local probes). This adds significant value beyond the empty 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?

The description clearly states the tool reports ComfyUI environment info, mirroring comfy-cli env. It specifies both remote system stats and local probes, distinguishing it from potential siblings like get_system_stats by covering a broader scope.

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 explains what the tool does and mentions graceful degradation, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like get_system_stats. Usage guidance is implied by the tool's function, lacking direct comparison.

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