comfyui_get_queue

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety behaviors. It adds only the context 'current' to imply a point-in-time snapshot, which is a slight enrichment, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details. This is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely sufficient, especially with an output schema covering return values. However, the lack of disambiguation from comfyui_get_queue_status creates a minor completeness gap, leaving the agent to guess which queue-related tool is appropriate.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since there are no parameters to explain.

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' and identifies the resource as 'the current ComfyUI execution queue state', which clearly states what the tool does. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like comfyui_clear_queue or comfyui_interrupt, despite potential ambiguity with comfyui_get_queue_status.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as comfyui_get_queue_status or comfyui_get_progress. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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