comfyui_job_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is non-mutating. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: pending jobs include a queue_position, and finished jobs expose their output files. This clarifies response semantics without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The status list is front-loaded, and the output-file note is a single, relevant trailing sentence.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the important semantic ground: possible statuses, queue_position for pending jobs, and output files for finished jobs. It could add explicit routing guidance against siblings like comfyui_history or comfyui_get_output, but that is more of a usage-guideline gap.

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 is only one required parameter, prompt_id, and its purpose as the job identifier is inferable from the parameter name and the tool's job-status scope. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description never explicitly maps prompt_id to the job being queried, so it adds minimal parameter-level meaning.

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?

States exactly what the tool reports: the status of a job, and enumerates the possible status values including the queue_position nuance for pending jobs. It is clearly a read/status tool and distinguishable by the 'job' scope from the likely server-level comfyui_status sibling, though it does not explicitly name or compare siblings.

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 intended use is implied: check the status of a previously submitted job, likely after comfyui_run. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives such as comfyui_history or comfyui_get_output are mentioned.

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