comfyui_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does note that clearing only affects pending jobs and that the running job is unaffected—important scoping information. However, it does not elaborate on side effects of clearing (e.g., whether pending jobs are permanently lost, any confirmation needed) or the precise nature of the 'list' output. It adds some transparency but leaves gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that delivers the core purpose and the key caveat about the running job. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main actions and their effects. It does not describe the output format, but the presence of an output schema mitigates that need. It also doesn't hint at error conditions or when the tool might be unavailable (e.g., no ComfyUI connection), but overall it is sufficiently complete for simple usage.

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 description explicitly explains the action parameter's values and their effects: 'list' shows jobs, 'clear' removes pending ones. This adds meaning beyond the raw enum in the schema, which only lists possible values without descriptions. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this textual explanation is critical and well executed.

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 dual function: showing running/pending jobs and clearing pending jobs via the action parameter. It uses specific verbs ('Show' and 'clear') and identifies the resource (jobs). This distinguishes it from siblings like comfyui_status (which might show system status) and comfyui_job_status (which focuses on a single job).

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 context (view jobs or clear pending ones) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools. For instance, it doesn't advise when to use comfyui_queue over comfyui_status or comfyui_history for job listing. The mention of the action parameter provides some guidance, but exclusionary or alternative conditions are absent.

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