get_result_images

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 correctly implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but it does not disclose behavior for incomplete jobs (e.g., error vs. empty result), output format, or any pagination/ordering details. This is adequate but not rich.

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 with no wasted words. It conveys the action, scope, and necessary condition efficiently.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the input (completed job's prompt ID) and the result (all output images). It does not explain what happens if the job is not completed, but the output schema likely covers return structure, making this sufficient for typical use.

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 input schema covers the sole parameter 'prompt_id' with a clear description ('The prompt ID of the completed job'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get all output images') and clearly scopes it to 'a completed ComfyUI job.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_status (status only) and get_image_url (a single image URL).

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 when to use the tool: after a ComfyUI job has completed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_image_url for individual images, so it falls short of full 5-level guidance.

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