comfy_get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral nuance of falling back to legacy history when a modern record isn't available, which goes beyond the structured fields. However, it doesn't disclose not-found behavior or what shape the fallback result takes, keeping this at the minimum viable level.

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, front-loaded sentence that places the verb-resource pair first and the fallback clarifier second. Zero filler words, no repetition of the title, and every clause contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter read operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient but leaves gaps: the 'legacy history fallback' mechanism is never explained, and there's no guidance on how job_id maps to modern versus legacy records. It doesn't need to describe the return shape thanks to the output schema, but the fallback semantics should be elaborated.

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 for parameter meaning, but it doesn't. While the single 'job_id' parameter is partially self-evident from its name, the description adds nothing about the expected format, provenance (e.g., from comfy_list_jobs), or how a legacy history ID differs from a modern job ID.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('full modern job record'), and the 'legacy history fallback' note hints at how it differs from plain history reads. However, 'full modern job' is somewhat vague, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from nearby siblings like comfy_get_run_result or comfy_get_history.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'legacy history fallback' phrase implies it handles both current and past job records, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over comfy_list_jobs, comfy_get_run_result, or comfy_get_history, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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