comfyui_get_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one key behavior: 'full workflow payloads are hidden by default', which informs users of the default response content and implies the include_workflows parameter effect. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only status, rate limits, or other potential side effects, though 'inspect' suggests a safe operation.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loading the core purpose and immediately adding a behavioral caveat. Every word contributes value, with no repetition of the tool name or schema details. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the scope (running and pending jobs) and the default workflow visibility, which are the most important user-facing aspects. However, it could have briefly mentioned how to include workflows or distinguished between running and pending states, but the output schema likely covers return details.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It directly explains the core parameter behavior by stating that full workflow payloads are hidden by default, which clarifies the effect of include_workflows=true. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's default value and title.

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 'Inspect' with the clear resource 'running and pending jobs', which precisely identifies the queue inspection functionality. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like comfyui_get_run (specific run) and comfyui_clear_queue (clearing) by focusing on the queue state. The extra note about hidden workflow payloads adds useful scope.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as comfyui_get_run or comfyui_health. There is no mention of preferred contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the name and the action 'inspect'.

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