get_history

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

Without annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It details the return content (status, timing, cached nodes, output details, full error info including Python tracebacks), which informs the agent about the tool's read-only nature and diagnostic value. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected. The description adds meaningful context beyond the implicit read-only behavior.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and what is returned; the second gives a specific usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. Minor omissions (e.g., format of the history) do not significantly impair completeness. The description enables the agent to use the tool correctly without missing critical context.

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 already provides full coverage for the single parameter (prompt_id) with a clear description. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. The description's value lies elsewhere (return info), not in enhancing parameter meaning.

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 'Get execution history for a ComfyUI prompt' and lists the specific data returned (status, timing, cached nodes, output details, full error info). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_status or get_logs, which serve different diagnostic purposes.

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 advises 'Use after a failed enqueue_workflow to diagnose what went wrong', providing a clear use case. It does not, however, mention when not to use this tool over alternatives like get_logs or get_job_status, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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