resolve_missing_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns pack ids, repos, and install hints, and warns about third-party code, providing valuable behavioral 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?

Three concise sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose, then differentiator, then warning. Each sentence adds value.

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 low complexity, single parameter, and presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, return content, and a safety advisory.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It mentions 'these node class names' but does not define what a class type is or provide examples, leaving room for ambiguity. However, the parameter is self-explanatory to some extent.

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 the tool finds installable node packs for given node class names from the Comfy Registry, and distinguishes it from port_workflow, which is for model-family moves.

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?

Explicitly states this is the tool for missing/uninstalled nodes and contrasts with port_workflow. Also provides a caution about third-party code, guiding user decision-making.

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