comfyui_get_system_info

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description adds important behavioral context by explaining that the information is sanitized and whitelist-filtered, with sensitive fields deliberately excluded. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand privacy and safety aspects.

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 and well-structured: it opens with the main purpose, specifies the relevant system stats, and explains excluded sensitive fields. The Returns section is clearly formatted. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters), the description is complete. It explains both what is returned and what is deliberately excluded, providing adequate context for an agent to decide to call it. The output schema likely details the return types, so the description does not need to elaborate 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by describing the return structure (keys like comfyui_version, devices, queue), which indirectly clarifies what the caller can expect, even though parameter semantics are not applicable.

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 the tool returns sanitized ComfyUI system information, with a specific verb and resource. It details what is included (GPU VRAM, queue depth, ComfyUI version) and excluded (sensitive fields), which distinguishes it from siblings like comfyui_get_queue_status and comfyui_get_server_features, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 clear usage context: it is 'useful for making generation decisions'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient to infer appropriate use cases. No exclusions are mentioned.

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