check_comfyui

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

Discloses that the tool checks connectivity and returns node count and device/VRAM. It also warns about failure implications. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, but it omits potential side effects or permissions.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide failure guidance. No wasted words.

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 existing output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, including its role in a loop, return data, and failure implications.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds value by explaining the return values (installed-node count, device/VRAM) beyond the input schema.

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 specific verb 'confirm' and resource 'ComfyUI reachability', clearly stating the tool's purpose as a connectivity check. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'system_stats' by focusing on reachability and loop integration.

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?

Provides clear guidance: use for initial connectivity check, and if it fails, do not guess node names. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other tools like 'system_stats' or 'get_node' for when not to use.

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