comfy_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does add useful context: the 'wait' argument blocks until the HTTP API responds, with a timeout. However, it omits other important behaviors like what happens if the instance is already running, error handling, or whether it launches asynchronously when wait=false.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args' section is minimal but earns its place by explaining the single parameter. There is no fluff, though it could arguably include one or two more essential details without becoming wordy.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main action and wait behavior. However, it leaves gaps such as behavior when already running, the meaning of COMFYUI_STARTUP_TIMEOUT, and any failure modes. This is average completeness for a launch tool of low complexity.

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 only provides a boolean named 'wait' with a default, but the description explains its meaning: block until the HTTP API answers, subject to COMFYUI_STARTUP_TIMEOUT. This adds meaningful semantic context that the schema lacks, especially with 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Launch' and identifies the resource as 'the portable ComfyUI instance', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like comfy_stop and restart_comfy. While it doesn't explicitly say 'start the server', 'Launch' is unambiguous in this context.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use comfy_start instead of alternatives such as restart_comfy or comfy_status. The 'wait' argument implies a use case (blocking until ready) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.

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