system_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implicitly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, and listing the specific data points provides clarity on what to expect. However, it does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or address potential costs, leaving a small gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists all relevant outputs without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It specifies all distinct data points (RAM, VRAM, GPU, ComfyUI version, queue size) and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns. Given its simplicity, no additional context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but it effectively explains what the tool returns, which is relevant since there is no output 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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the exact resources it retrieves: RAM/VRAM/GPU usage, ComfyUI version, and queue size. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_progress or list_models, which target different data.

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 implies usage for checking system-level stats, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. Since it's a simple stats tool, the context is reasonably inferred but lacks explicit guidance.

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