comfy_instance_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value with the explicit guarantee 'It never starts, stops, or changes the instance' and outlines the inspection method (API argv, PID/process tree, registry), going beyond the annotation fields without contradicting them.

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?

Two tightly scoped sentences: the first states the intent and outputs, the second adds context, method, and safety guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the title or schema.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, method, scope, and non-mutation guarantee. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool appropriately.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly implies a no-input diagnostic action, and the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 the specific verb 'Discover' and enumerates concrete outputs: connected instance, supervisor, paths, ports, and versions. It clearly distinguishes this diagnostic tool from status/stats tools by emphasizing connection topology and local Desktop process correlation.

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 gives clear context: 'For a local Comfy Desktop endpoint' and explains what inputs it correlates. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand when this diagnostic tool is appropriate.

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