comfy_list_jobs

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 uses the v0.20+ canonical jobs API and mentions pagination behavior (offset vs after), which is useful. However, it doesn't describe return format or any rate limits, but with strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with a one-line summary followed by an Args list. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more compact, but it's efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 7 optional parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (listing jobs with filters and pagination). It mentions the API version and pagination modes. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema exists, so that's not required. It's complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 each parameter's purpose (status filter, workflow_id filter, sort_by, sort_order, limit, offset, after) in the Args section. However, it doesn't provide details like valid values for status or sort_by, or the relationship between offset and after beyond a brief note. This is adequate but not rich.

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 lists ComfyUI jobs using the v0.20+ canonical jobs API. It distinguishes from siblings like comfy_get_job (single job) and comfy_get_queue (queue state) by focusing on listing jobs with filters. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, so it loses a point.

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 usage for listing jobs with optional filters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like comfy_get_queue or comfy_get_history. It mentions the API version (v0.20+) which is useful context, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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