get_system_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so by stating read-only, no parameters, and error on unreachable server. This covers the key aspects for a simple get tool. No contradictions or omissions beyond what is reasonable.

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 sentences, starting with the main purpose, then details, then a use case. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. Slightly more verbose than necessary but still efficient.

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 low complexity, no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all important aspects: what it returns (raw JSON), when to use (connectivity check, VRAM check), and constraints (requires running server). It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly notes 'takes no parameters'.

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 system information from the ComfyUI server, listing specific data types (GPU, VRAM, versions, OS). The verb 'get' and resource 'system stats' are explicit. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools which deal with workflows, nodes, images, etc.

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 gives clear context: requires a running server, read-only, no parameters. It provides a concrete use case ('confirm connectivity and check available VRAM before enqueuing large workflows') and notes error conditions. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the simplicity of the tool makes this sufficient.

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