comfy_list_destinations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context by noting that both destinations and their paths are returned, but it does not explain what 'configured' means or whether the list is dynamic. 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant elaboration. Every word adds meaning, making it optimally concise.

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?

This is a simple read-only list operation with zero parameters, a provided output schema, and strong annotations. The description sufficiently conveys the core purpose and mentions paths, which is the primary return content. It could add a bit more context about what 'destinations' refers to (e.g., disk, TD, Blender), but the output schema and sibling tools provide enough surrounding context.

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 the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4.

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 verb ('List') and the specific resource ('configured output destinations'), and adds that it returns their paths. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like comfy_list_output_images (which lists images, not destinations) and the send_to_* tools that consume destinations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios such as before sending outputs, inspecting current configuration, or how this relates to sending tools. The description simply states what it does without any usage context.

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