get_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses it's read-only, requires a reachable server, works locally or remote, and returns JSON with specific arrays. While it doesn't cover rate limits or error handling, it provides essential behavioral context.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence serves a distinct role: stating the function, noting constraints and output, and providing usage context. No wasted 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 no output schema, the description explains the return format and key fields. It covers read-only, server requirement, and usage context. Minor gaps: does not mention empty queue behavior, but overall sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output structure (running and pending arrays with prompt_id and position), which goes beyond the empty input 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 it gets the current ComfyUI execution queue, including running and pending jobs with prompt_id and position. It distinguishes from siblings like get_job_status, get_history, and cancel tools, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 tells when to use this tool ('before cancel_job or cancel_queued_job/clear_queue') and provides alternatives (get_job_status, get_history) for checking outcomes. It also notes prerequisites (reachable server) and read-only nature, giving clear guidance.

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