suggest_template_for_checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core mapping logic (FLUX to txt2img_flux, SD XL/SD 1.5 to txt2img) but does not say what happens for unknown checkpoints or what exactly is returned.

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 three tightly written sentences with the core mapping logic front-loaded. Every sentence contributes either the purpose, the mapping rule, or the call sequence.

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 simple one-parameter suggestion tool with full schema coverage, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly. The main remaining gaps are the exact return value and fallback behavior for unrecognized checkpoints.

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 ckpt_name parameter is already documented. The description reinforces that the parameter is a checkpoint filename and determines the suggested template, but adds little parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: suggesting a workflow template from a checkpoint filename. It also names the concrete template outputs (txt2img_flux or txt2img), so the agent can distinguish this from build_workflow and other sibling tools.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: call before build_workflow when the user did not specify a template. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_templates or state when not to use it, but the sequencing guidance is strong.

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