comfyui_list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by documenting the return structure, job fields (prompt_id, status, timing, outputs), and pagination response, which go beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, immediately states the core function, and adds return format details without any redundant text. Every sentence earns its place, making it both 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 read-only listing tool, the description covers the core behavior, return format, job fields, and pagination. It does not mention potential edge cases like empty results or large datasets, but the output schema and high schema coverage reduce the burden on the description. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description only provides a high-level summary of filtering, sorting, and pagination without adding new meaning beyond the parameter descriptions, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'List' with resource 'jobs' and explicitly scopes 'across queue and history' with filtering, sorting, and pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like comfyui_get_queue (queue only) and comfyui_get_history (history only).

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 clearly states the tool lists jobs across both queue and history, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the scope language makes the differentiation from similar tools implicit.

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