get_progress

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only repeats the purpose ('get... state') and does not explicitly state that it is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any other behavioral details. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. There is no wasted text or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and the presence of several related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the 'queue state' includes, what the return format is, or how this tool fits into a workflow (e.g., polling for task completion). The optional 'prompt_id' parameter's future-only nature is also not addressed.

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 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'prompt_id', describing it as 'for future per-job progress'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the 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's function: 'Get current ComfyUI queue state.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('current ComfyUI queue state'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like queue_workflow or cancel_queue. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's for reading progress, but the meaning is implied.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wait_for_image or cancel_queue. The description simply states what it does without any contextual cues, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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