get_system_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only 'get' operation and specifies the included data categories, which is sufficient for a simple stats tool. It does not mention failure modes or prerequisites, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 that immediately states the action and resource, with no redundant wording or filler. It is appropriately concise.

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 zero parameters and an output schema that defines the return structure, the description fully specifies the tool's purpose and behavior. No additional context is needed.

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 baseline score of 4 applies. There is no parameter confusion or need for additional description.

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 'get' with a clear resource 'ComfyUI system information' and enumerates key data categories (OS, RAM, VRAM, device info), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_queue or get_history.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The intended use is implied by the simple read-only nature of the tool, but there is no mention of alternatives or contexts where it should not be used.

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