get_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return content (running and pending items) but does not disclose any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. For a simple read-only getter, this is adequate but not rich. No behavioral traits beyond the obvious are revealed, so 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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get the current ComfyUI queue with running and pending items.' Every word adds value, and there is no redundant filler. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values (per rules). The description fully covers what the tool does, and the output schema will handle the return structure. There are no missing pieces for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to explain. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter info (there is none needed), which is acceptable. No points lost for missing parameter details.

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 'Get' and the resource 'current ComfyUI queue', and further specifies 'running and pending items'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clear_queue (which deletes) and get_job_status (which targets a single job), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies this tool is for viewing the queue's current state (running and pending). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to use it over siblings like get_history or get_job_status. Lack of explicit 'when not to use' guidance prevents a 5.

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