comfy_get_status

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 safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns combined status JSON with queue info, system stats, and event health, which is useful but doesn't go beyond what the annotations and output schema likely cover. No contradiction with 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, with a single line summarizing the purpose and a brief bullet list of return contents. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the key phrase 'one-shot status overview'.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete enough. It lists the three main components of the return value (queue, GPU, execution state, events) and notes it's a combined JSON. The only minor gap is not specifying the exact structure, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description correctly focuses on the return value, which is the only meaningful input for the agent. With no parameters, the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps, and it adequately explains what the output contains.

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 provides a 'one-shot status overview' covering queue, GPU, execution state, and events. It distinguishes itself from siblings like comfy_get_system_stats and comfy_get_gpu_info by combining multiple aspects into a single status call, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 this is a quick, comprehensive status check, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus more specific tools like comfy_get_system_stats or comfy_get_queue. The 'one-shot' phrasing suggests it's for a broad overview, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided.

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