comfy_fetch_logs

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

Annotations already declare safe, read-only, idempotent behavior with no destructive side effects. The description adds behavioral context about what fields are extracted (status, errors, per-node traceback, completed nodes) and references the underlying /history endpoint, giving extra clarity beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tight and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a two-sentence technical explanation of source and extraction, and an Args section. No redundant filler; each sentence adds value and the key information appears early.

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's simplicity (one param), the presence of an output schema, and thorough annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, input source, behavior, and the fact that it simplifies raw JSON. No missing information that would hinder correct invocation.

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 schema provides only a bare prompt_id string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by specifying that the prompt_id is the one returned by comfy_queue_prompt, giving precise origin and usage guidance for the single parameter.

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 retrieves execution logs and error tracebacks for a specific prompt. It explicitly distinguishes itself by extracting only log-relevant fields from the full ComfyUI history response, separating it from broader history/result tools like comfy_get_history or comfy_get_run_result.

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 solid context: it tells users to pass a prompt_id from comfy_queue_prompt and explains the tool filters down a verbose response to useful log data. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, the purpose and input source make the usage clear enough.

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