which

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool is a lightweight wrapper around 'comfy which' and that it returns a bare selection answer, which is useful. However, it does not describe the exact output format, whether it can fail (e.g., if no install is targeted), or any side effects. For a read-only query tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence provides a precise usage boundary. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. The only minor gap is not describing the exact output shape or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the explicit comparison to server_info, an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema is trivially complete. The description adds context about what the tool reports (the selected workspace) and how it relates to server_info, which is meaningful for an agent deciding to call it. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that.

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 verb ('Report') and resource ('which ComfyUI install/workspace comfy-cli currently targets'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling server_info by explicitly noting that server_info already reports the same selected workspace. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and differentiates it from related tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('only when the bare selection is all you want') and when not to use it (when server_info would suffice, since it reports the same workspace alongside more details). This is clear, actionable guidance that prevents misuse.

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