comfyui_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the two checks performed but does not mention whether it is read-only, what happens on failure, or the return format. For a simple health check this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states what the tool does. There is no redundant wording, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which defines return values), the description is complete. It fully covers what is needed: connectivity and canvas bridge status. No additional context is required for an AI agent 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. By default, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline 4, and the description appropriately does not add unnecessary parameter details.

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 a specific verb 'Check' and identifies two clear resources: ComfyUI connectivity and the optional canvas bridge installation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like comfyui_list_node_types or comfyui_run_workflow, which focus on specific operations.

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?

While the description makes it obvious that this tool is for verifying connectivity, it does not explicitly state when to use it relative to alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out, so it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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