bisect

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it explains the underlying mechanism (enables half, disables rest), mentions the preferred API and fallback to .disabled directory suffixes, warns that a restart may be needed, and details the state machine transitions. This goes well beyond a minimal description and gives the agent a clear model of side effects and prerequisites.

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 longer than typical but every sentence contributes essential information about the state machine, actions, and constraints. It is well-structured with a clear overview followed by per-action details, and the front-loaded purpose makes the tool's intent immediately clear. No redundant filler is present.

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 the tool's complexity (state machine, side effects, fallback behavior), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all five actions, their prerequisites, the session lifecycle, the restart caveat, and the information returned by 'status'. Since there is no output schema, the explicit description of 'status' results is especially valuable. The description leaves no significant gaps for using the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant semantics beyond the schema by explaining each enum value's effect within the state machine (e.g., what 'good' does to candidate sets and when it reports the culprit). It also clarifies that all actions are argument-free and that 'good'/'bad' require an active session, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Binary-search (git-bisect style) over installed ComfyUI custom nodes to find which one causes a problem.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_custom_nodes or install_custom_node. The state machine explanation further clarifies its unique role.

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 provides a clear when-to-use context for each action, such as 'Use to abort a bisection or restore the installation after the search completes' for reset, and notes that 'good'/'bad' require a prior 'start'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context strongly implies the appropriate scenario, so it lacks only the explicit exclusion guidance for a 5.

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