auth_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, never returns secrets, and explains the exact payload structure including fields and edge cases (e.g., the blind spot with COMFY_API_KEY, and the fallback for non-dict payloads). This is exceptionally transparent.

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 structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage, then return details, then edge cases. The blind-spot section is clearly labeled and adds critical information without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and important caveats. The edge-case handling for non-dict payloads is especially thorough.

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 there is nothing to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the return value rather than parameters. No additional parameter info is needed.

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 states a specific purpose: reporting Comfy Cloud credential status for partner-API nodes. It explicitly says it is read-only and never returns secrets, and it names the underlying command (`comfy cloud whoami`). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling `auth_login`, which handles authentication rather than status.

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 an explicit call condition: 'Call before running a workflow whose nodes hit partner APIs (Seedream / Veo / Kling / Gemini / …) to self-diagnose.' This tells the agent exactly when to use it and why. Though it doesn't list alternatives, there is no direct sibling for status checking, so the guidance is sufficient.

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