get_queue

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

The description discloses read-only nature, server requirement (local or remote --comfyui-url), and default behavior of omitting payloads. No annotations are provided, so this carries the full burden and does so effectively.

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 sentences, each with a clear purpose: what it does, how the parameter works, and when to use it. No redundant information.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains the output (running+pending jobs, prompt_id, position). It also covers prerequisites (server reachable) and behavioral notes. Complete for a simple read-only tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining why include_workflows is useful (inspect/edit pending payload) and noting it can be large. This goes beyond the 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 gets the current execution queue including running and pending jobs with prompt_id and position. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_job, cancel_queued_job, clear_queue, move_queued_job, and edit_queued_job by mentioning them.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use include_workflows (to inspect/edit payloads) and when to omit it (default for small output). It also lists tools to use after get_queue, providing clear context and alternatives.

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