get_status

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns lightweight summaries by default, supports detail='full' for more info, and history is paginated. It could add more clarity on what 'lightweight summaries' contain, but overall it informs the agent of request behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose, the second adds key usage details. Every word contributes value with no 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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and pagination. It omits explicit descriptions of return format beyond 'lightweight summaries' and 'more info', but this is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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?

While the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds significant meaning: explains detail values ('summary' default vs 'full'), states default include as ["queue","system"], and clarifies history_limit default (5) and max (20) along with pagination usage. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 retrieves ComfyUI status including queue, system stats, and history. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_node_info or get_workflow by focusing on system-level status rather than specific node or workflow details.

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 guidance on using parameters like detail, include, and pagination (history_limit and history_offset). It implies when to use this tool (for status checks) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.

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