comfyui_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a no-side-effect status read. It adds useful context by disclosing that the tool probes reachability and reports queue size, GPU/VRAM/RAM usage, and versions, which goes beyond the bare read-only annotation.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose ('ComfyUI health') and then lists the key data points. Every word earns its place and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only status tool with an output schema already present, the description is complete. It communicates what the agent can expect to learn from the tool without needing to explain return values or parameters.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters whose meaning needs to be clarified.

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 names the resource ('ComfyUI health') and enumerates concrete contents (reachability, queue size, GPU/VRAM/RAM usage, versions), so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like comfyui_queue or comfyui_free_memory without opening schemas.

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 this is the general health/readiness check for ComfyUI, but it never states when to prefer it over comfyui_queue for queue details or comfyui_free_memory for memory relief. An agent must infer the use case from the word 'health'.

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