comfy_list_workers

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that it returns 'active' subprocess workers with PIDs, Python versions, and generation, which goes beyond the generic annotation and clarifies the scope.

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, concise sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no redundant information. Every word adds value, making it exceptionally efficient.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description fully specifies the scope ('active workers') and the returned attributes. No additional context is required for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 description does not need to compensate for schema gaps. Baseline 4 is appropriate given the absence of parameters and full schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('active comfy-env subprocess workers') and enumerates returned attributes (PIDs, Python, generation). This distinguishes it from other list tools like comfy_list_models or comfy_get_system_stats.

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 a monitoring or inspection use case (listing active workers) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as comfy_get_status or comfy_get_system_stats. It lacks specific when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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