list_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output format (token-light catalog, grouped by category) and implies a read-only, non-side-effect operation. It could mention absence of destructive behavior, but for a list tool this is adequate and adds value beyond raw schema.

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 sentences: first states purpose and output format, second gives workflow guidance. Every word is purposeful, no redundancy, and the most critical information (what and how to start) is front-loaded.

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 listing tool with no output schema, this description fully covers what the tool returns (catalog of tool names and summaries), its organization (grouped by category), and the intended next steps. It is complete for the tool's purpose and context.

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 both parameters (search, category) have descriptive text in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter meaning, but it doesn't need to because the schema completely explains them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool lists every comfyui-mcp capability as a token-light catalog with tool names and one-line summaries, grouped by category. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as the top-level entry point, and precisely names the resource and action.

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 says 'Start here' and then instructs to use describe_tool for parameters and call_tool to run tools, giving explicit sequential guidance on when and how to use this tool relative to alternatives.

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