comfy_get_events

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

The description provides critical behavioral context, notably that events are 'drained' (meaning they are consumed and removed) and that an event_type filter is available. It also explains the return format ('JSON with events list and count'). While annotations don't include readOnlyInfo, the description's clarity on the destructive/consuming nature of the operation is valuable and goes beyond mere schema.

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?

Three terse, informative lines with a clear docstring format. Every sentence provides necessary detail, and the structure (description, args, returns) makes it scannable. No wasted words.

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 simple event-draining tool, the description fully covers behavior, parameters, and return value. The output schema exists so no extra return-format explanation is needed. One could argue for mentioning side effects (events are removed), but 'drain' implies this strongly enough. For a tool with two optional parameters, this is near-complete.

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?

Although the schema has 0% coverage, the description clearly explains both parameters (event_type and limit), including the default for limit (100). It doesn't add extra detail beyond the schema's own documentation, but for an arguably simple tool, the description effectively covers the parameters. This earns a strong score given the tool's simplicity.

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 verb 'Drain' is specific and memorable, and 'buffered events from EventManager' clearly identifies the resource. While it's not obvious what 'events' refers to without more context about the system, the description effectively distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform CRUD operations by emphasizing that this tool retrieves and clears buffered events. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for comparison, but the intent is clear.

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 states this tool 'drains' events, implying it retrieves and clears the buffer—a key usage detail. It also notes optional filters, clarifying its purpose compared to other tools. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the behaviors are contextually clear given the tool name and description.

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