comfyui_list_outputs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: pagination via limit/offset, the JSON envelope with filename/subfolder keys, and the relationship to comfyui_get_image. It doesn't cover edge cases or error behavior, but it goes 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 well-structured with a clear first sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. It is scannable and not overly verbose, though the Args section repeats information already present in the schema. Overall it earns its place.

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 simple paginated listing tool, the description is complete: it covers purpose, pagination parameters, return envelope structure, and the next step to retrieve files. The presence of an output schema and strong annotations reduces the burden on the description. Minor gaps like clarifying what counts as an 'output' or how history is scoped are not critical.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both limit and offset are fully described in the schema. The description repeats the default values and semantics but adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the descriptive burden.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List output files from ComfyUI's execution history.' It differentiates from siblings like comfyui_get_image by noting it returns metadata (filename/subfolder) rather than the files themselves, and from list_models/list_workflows by focusing on execution history outputs.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (listing output files from execution history) and explicitly directs the caller to use comfyui_get_image with the returned keys to retrieve actual files. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use the tool, such as when history details are needed from comfyui_get_history.

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