comfy_list_output_images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'local filesystem fallback' behavior, which is useful context, but does not detail when the fallback triggers, how results are sorted, or any limitations. Minimal additional behavioral disclosure beyond 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—two sentences and a short arg list. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description is fairly complete. It indicates the source (history) and a fallback, but lacks details on fallback conditions and any ordering/pagination behavior. Still, it is sufficient for a straightforward listing operation.

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: 'subfolder: Optional subfolder to filter by' and 'limit: Maximum number of filenames to return' provide clear meanings for both parameters, though not deeply detailed. This adequately fills the coverage gap.

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?

Description clearly states it lists output images from history with a local filesystem fallback. This distinguishes it from comfy_get_output_image (which retrieves a single image) and other listing tools like comfy_list_models. The verb+resource+source is specific and actionable.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'history with a local filesystem fallback' but does not explain when fallback occurs or when to prefer this over comfy_list_artifacts or comfy_list_models. No alternatives 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.