comfyui_get_progress

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context: it returns status, queue position, and output files when available, and clarifies that step-level detail is inaccessible via this endpoint—information not captured by 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 front-loaded with the primary action and return summary, and each sentence adds value. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema but adds the origin detail. Overall efficient with minimal fluff.

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?

Covers the core behavior, return contents, and the key WebSocket limitation, which is sufficient for a simple progress getter with an output schema. Could elaborate on error/unknown status meanings, but the status list is already explicit. Adequate for agent invocation.

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 schema only lists 'prompt_id' as a string with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that prompt_id is the one returned by run_workflow or generate_image, giving the agent crucial provenance and usage context beyond the 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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches workflow execution progress via HTTP, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the WebSocket limitation, setting it apart from get_queue, get_history, and get_job.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (basic progress via HTTP) and when to use an alternative (wait=True on run_workflow/generate_image for step progress and current node via WebSocket). This is a clear when/when-not/alternative framing.

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