resolve_missing_nodes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description is free to add context. It does so by specifying that the tool returns pack ids, repos, and install hints, and by flagging the third-party code risk associated with installing custom nodes. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the 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 tight and purposeful: a clear first sentence names the tool's function, the second distinguishes it from a sibling, and the third adds output and risk context. Every sentence earns its place without padding.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and three annotations, the description covers purpose, selection criteria, return values, and the important user-consent caveat. There is no major contextual gap for an agent to successfully select and invoke the 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies the parameter as node class names, but it does not fully explain the expected format or source of those class names beyond their obvious semantic connection to missing nodes.

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 action and resource: find which installable node packs provide the queried node class names, scoped to the official Comfy Registry. It also explicitly states this is the tool for missing/uninstalled nodes and names a sibling tool it is not, making differentiation clear.

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 gives an explicit boundary: use this for missing/uninstalled nodes, while port_workflow is for model-family moves and not for missing nodes. It also gives operational guidance by warning that installing custom nodes runs third-party code, so the user's choice must be surfaced.

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