search_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that nodes are searched across both live ComfyUI and the knowledge base and that live results override KB results for the same class. However, it does not describe result ordering, pagination, return shape, or failure behavior, which are relevant for a no-annotation search tool.

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 and front-loads the primary action before the source and override behavior. Every sentence carries useful information, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

The tool has four optional parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema. The description covers the core search scope and source override behavior, but it does not clarify the return format or how live versus KB results are presented. For a search tool without annotations or an output schema, it is adequate but leaves some operational gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines the query and each filter parameter with examples. The description adds only a high-level summary of those same parameters and does not add syntax, matching semantics, or precedence beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, this meets the baseline 3.

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 states a clear verb and resource: search nodes by query string and optional filters. It also specifies that the search spans live ComfyUI and the knowledge base, with live overriding KB for duplicate classes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as discover_nodes_live, suggest_nodes, or list_node_types, which keeps it below a 5.

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 implied by the query-and-filter framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools. The description does not say when to prefer search_nodes over discover_nodes_live, suggest_nodes, or list_node_types. It provides enough context to infer basic usage but leaves routing decisions to the agent.

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