comfyui_run_workflow_stream

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) already signal that this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral context not present in annotations: it uses a WebSocket stream endpoint, captures per-event updates like 'progress', 'executing', and 'executed', and filters events by 'prompt_id'. It also notes the return type (stream events plus final status). This is valuable, though it does not explain error handling, timeouts, or cancellation, so a 4 is appropriate.

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-organized: a one-sentence summary, followed by technical behavior, usage guidance, and a parameter description. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, and there is no filler or repetition. Despite being longer than two sentences, every part adds value, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 streaming complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what the tool does, how it works internally (WebSocket), what events are captured, and when to use it. It does not mention potential error conditions, long-running behavior, or how to cancel, but the output schema likely handles return-value details. Overall, it is complete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly, with only minor gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, `workflow`. The description compensates by specifying 'workflow: JSON string of a ComfyUI workflow (API format).' This adds key meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the required format (JSON string) and the format variant (API format), which is essential for correct use. A higher score would require more detail like examples or constraints, but for a single param this is solid.

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 a clear statement: 'Submit a ComfyUI workflow and return websocket stream events plus final status.' This specifies the verb (submit), resource (ComfyUI workflow), and output (stream events + final status), and it distinguishes the tool from its sibling comfyui_run_workflow by explicitly mentioning the streaming nature.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'Use this streaming version when you need real-time per-node progress events... use the non-streaming variant for fire-and-forget submission or when you only need the final result.' This names the alternative and clarifies the intended use cases, fully satisfying the dimension.

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