get_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral nuance: running items carry progress only when started by this server, and it notes that get_progress gives the same detail for one run. However, it doesn't mention side effects, safety, or potential absences of progress information beyond this caveat. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. The second sentence provides a caveat and a sibling reference without wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (no params) and has an output schema that presumably describes the return format. The description covers what the tool shows, the progress nuance, and a pointer to get_progress, making it complete for this context.

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 100% schema coverage, so no parameter guidance is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 specific verb ('Show') and resource ('ComfyUI currently running and queued'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_progress by noting that get_progress is for a single run, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (for an overview of the queue) and explicitly mentions get_progress as an alternative for one-run detail. It provides clear context but doesn't explicitly state exclusions or other alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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