comfyui_get_download_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns a list of download tasks with progress, speed, and status, and clarifies that it focuses on 'active' downloads. No contradictions 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 concise: one sentence for purpose and a brief returns line. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. The docstring formatting is acceptable.

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 the simple tool with no parameters, strong annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention when to use it relative to siblings (e.g., for monitoring downloads), but that gap is already reflected in usage_guidelines. The core behavior and return structure are covered.

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 is 4. There are no parameter semantics to add beyond the schema, and the description correctly focuses on the return value rather than input.

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 a specific verb ('check') and resource ('active model downloads'), and the return format (JSON list with progress, speed, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_queue or get_progress, which relate to workflow execution rather than download tasks.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like comfyui_download_model, comfyui_cancel_download, and comfyui_get_progress, the description does not explain why this tool should be preferred for checking download status or which contexts favor it.

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