get_node_inputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: results come from live ComfyUI when available and fall back to the knowledge base otherwise. That is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about staleness of knowledge-base data, caching, or what happens when node_name is unrecognized.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the data-source caveat second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what is returned (required and optional input definitions) and where it comes from. Minor gap: no indication of result shape or failure behavior for unknown nodes.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already has an example ('e.g. KSampler, CheckpointLoaderSimple'), so the baseline applies. The description adds no extra meaning about accepted name formats, case sensitivity, or whether class names must be exact.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed input definitions for a node', and narrows scope with '(required and optional)'. The 'inputs' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling get_node_outputs, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the lookup to run before wiring a node, but there is no explicit 'use when' statement and no routing to alternatives such as get_node_info, which likely overlaps. The fallback sentence touches context but is really about behavior, not selection.

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