comfy_detect_instability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds specific signals it detects (stuck jobs, OOM patterns) and the return structure (stable flag, issues list, queue counts), which is useful but not extensive. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not disclose limitations or side effects beyond what is implied.

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 a clear front-loaded purpose and return summary. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 no params, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and return format. However, it lacks guidance on how this fits into a diagnostic workflow, especially with many sibling tools. It does not mention prerequisites or when to prefer this over comfy_get_status or comfy_instance_doctor, making it slightly incomplete in a broader context.

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 are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits param details since none exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Nothing to add.

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 checks for 'stuck jobs, OOM patterns, and other instability signals' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like comfy_get_status and comfy_instance_doctor by focusing on instability detection rather than general status or diagnostics. The purpose is specific and not a tautology.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like comfy_get_system_stats or comfy_instance_doctor. It states what it does but not when it is the appropriate choice. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer its use.

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