comfyui_view_image

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral context: the image is downscaled to max_size px and returned inline. This goes beyond the schema and annotations by explaining the visual output and the scaling behavior, which helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the two usage modes are clearly separated, and the example is integrated without extra verbosity. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: how to specify the image and the downscaling behavior. It does not address edge cases like what happens if neither prompt_id nor filename is provided, but for a simple read-only view tool, this is adequate. The example clarifies a common use case.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the two parameter groups (prompt_id+index vs filename+subfolder/type) and mentions max_size in the context of downscaling. It also provides an example that hints at the type enum (input). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema names, though it could be more explicit about defaults and the meaning of each field.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return an image so it can be seen inline') and clearly distinguishes between two ways to specify the image (prompt_id+index or filename+subfolder/type). This differentiates it from sibling tools like comfyui_get_output or comfyui_upload_file, and includes a concrete example (uploaded input image).

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 provides clear instructions on how to choose between the two argument modes, and includes an example use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage. The guidance is practical and actionable.

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