comfy_get_run_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it 'Returns structured RunResult', which hints at the output type but not the internal structure or behavior (e.g., how results are stored, latency). With annotations handling safety, the added value is minimal but not contradictory. Score 3 reflects that the description provides slight extra context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a note on the return type, and a clean Args list. There is no wasted text, and the essential information is front-loaded. It earns a perfect score for efficiency.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like comfy_get_history or comfy_get_job, which might also return execution details. It also does not mention potential failure cases (e.g., invalid prompt_id) or prerequisites (e.g., prompt must have been executed). While not severely incomplete, it leaves gaps that a richer description could fill for a tool in a large toolbox.

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. It does explain that prompt_id is 'The ID of the prompt execution to retrieve', providing a clear semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Prompt Id' title. This is sufficient for a single-parameter tool, though it could expand on how to obtain a prompt_id or format expectations, but the current explanation is adequate.

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 'Get result of a specific prompt execution', specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'result of a specific prompt execution'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like comfy_get_queue or comfy_get_history, which serve different purposes. The inclusion of 'specific' and the parameter prompt_id makes the scope precise.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used after a prompt has been executed, or contrast it with comfy_get_history or comfy_get_job. Usage context is only implied from the purpose, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate timing and alternatives.

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