diagnose_workflow

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it 'proposes fixes' but does not apply them directly, consistent with readOnly. It also mentions external resolution via Comfy Registry, aligning with openWorldHint. No contradictions, and description adds valuable context beyond annotations.

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-loading the core purpose, and every part is informative. No unnecessary 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?

Given one simple parameter and an output schema (not shown but assumed), the description provides enough context about the tool's behavior, relationship to siblings, and post-diagnosis steps. It is complete for a diagnostic tool.

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 only parameter is 'workflow_id', which is self-explanatory from its name. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning. It implies the workflow is 'old/broken' but does not describe the parameter format or constraints. Adequate but minimal extra value.

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 clearly states it performs a deep-check on old/broken workflows and proposes fixes, including everything from validate_workflow plus Comfy Registry resolution. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_workflow and port_workflow by specifying added capabilities and alternatives.

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 says to use it for 'old/broken workflow' and provides alternatives: 'Apply fixes via edit_workflow, or port_workflow for model-family moves.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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