comfy_watch_progress

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'Poll EventManager' and 'Returns structured WatchProgressFrame', which slightly expands understanding of its behavior, but it doesn't disclose potential edge cases like prompt not found or polling frequency. 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 one sentence plus a parameter list, front-loaded with the primary action and return type. No unnecessary information, perfectly scoped for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple polling tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It doesn't elaborate on polling behavior or alternatives, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, it's adequate for an agent to invoke 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides a description of the only parameter, 'prompt_id: The prompt ID to watch', which clarifies its purpose. This is helpful, though it doesn't elaborate on how to obtain the ID or its format, but for a single obvious parameter it's sufficient.

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 polls EventManager for a prompt's execution progress and returns a structured WatchProgressFrame. This verb-resource-purpose combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like comfy_get_status (overall status) and comfy_get_queue (queue listing).

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 tracking a specific prompt's execution progress via polling, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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