comfyui_get_server_features

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the raw response format ('typically a dict of {feature_name: bool}') and notes it returns the raw `/features` response without post-processing. This goes beyond the annotations by revealing the exact response shape and the 'raw' nature, which helps set expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first line states the core purpose, the second adds the return format, and a third sentence provides a directed usage example. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. Code formatting (`/features`, `{feature_name: bool}`, `supports_preview_metadata`) improves readability.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool with strong annotations and a clear description that fully explains the return type and provides a motivating use case. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to document return values further.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter information and the description needs no parameter explanations. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameters while still mentioning the output shape and usage context.

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 opens with 'Get the feature flags advertised by the ComfyUI server' — a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('feature flags' from the server), and it distinguishes this from sibling tools like comfyui_get_system_info by focusing on feature flags. The exact endpoint `/features` and the 'dict of {feature_name: bool}' structure further clarify the purpose.

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 explicitly frames when to use the tool: 'Useful for capability-based branching' and gives a concrete example involving `comfyui_get_image`. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for exclusion, but the context is clear enough that an agent can decide appropriately.

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