comfy_list_artifacts

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds key behaviors: history merging for loopback instances and path constraints that prevent escaping the output root. This is valuable operational information not conveyed by 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 concise and well-structured, covering purpose and key behavioral nuances in two sentences without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about history merging and path constraints, but doesn't explain all parameters (e.g., filesystem_fallback) or contrast with sibling tools like comfy_list_output_images.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description mentions 'kind' via artifact types (image, video, etc.) and touches on subfolder/path constraints, but does not explicitly explain 'query', 'limit', 'offset', or 'filesystem_fallback'. These parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but lacking descriptions for a 6-parameter tool leaves room for misinterpretation.

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 identifies the tool's purpose:

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?

Provides context about loopback history merging and output root constraints, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like comfy_list_output_images or comfy_get_output_image. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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