comfy_get_queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false, so the description does not repeat those. It adds value by specifying that the queue state includes running and pending prompts, which is behavioral. However, it does not elaborate on whether the response includes ordering or limits, but given high annotation coverage, this is acceptable. No contradiction detected.

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 a single sentence that conveys all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides minimal waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 simplicity of the tool (0 params, clear annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. The presence of an output schema means the description need not explain return values, but it does mention the key output element. It could mention if the queue includes per-item details or just summaries, but overall it is adequate. The sibling names suggest various tools, so the need to differentiate is moderate.

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 0 parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description adds meaning by clarifying the return includes running and pending prompts, which is sufficient. Baseline for 0 params is 4 as per rubric, and the description uses that to add context effectively.

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 'Get current queue state including running and pending prompts' clearly states the purpose with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like comfy_list_jobs and comfy_get_status by focusing on the queue state, though it could be more specific about what queue state entails (e.g., counts, IDs, positions).

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 implies usage when the user needs to check the queue state, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like comfy_list_jobs (which may list individual jobs) or comfy_get_status (which may be broader). It provides no 'when not to use' guidance, but the phrasing 'current queue state' gives a clear context for usage.

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