server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it excels. It discloses that the local install is always returned even with a remote configured, that `hardware` is conditional on the installed comfy-cli reporting it, that `compatibility` raises before returning on hard incompatibility, and that `comfy_target` is only present for remote configurations. It even clarifies that `{"unsupported": true}` in freshness means nothing is broken, preventing misinterpretation.

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?

Though lengthy, the description is meticulously structured with a summary line followed by a bullet-like 'Returns' section breaking down each field with its conditions. Every sentence carries actionable information—no filler. The critical 'call this first' instruction is front-loaded, and the conditional field explanations are organized logically for an agent to parse.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must fully specify what the agent can expect, and it does. It covers every return field, under what conditions each appears, and how to interpret them (e.g., freshness update guidance, unsupported meaning). It also explains the tool's relation to remote configurations without probing them. Nothing needed for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description need not add parameter detail and it does not, which is correct.

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 precise verb+resource statement: 'Report the local ComfyUI/comfy-cli environment and verify compatibility.' It also notes it wraps `comfy env`, which clearly identifies the underlying operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_stats or get_logs by positioning it as the environment/version probe, not a runtime stats logger.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this first to confirm a local ComfyUI is up before running a workflow,' giving a clear entry point. It also provides conditional guidance: check for `hardware` and consult server instructions, and if `freshness` shows outdated core/packs, tell the user to update first. This gives both when-to-use and what-to-do-with-output guidance, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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