bisect_start

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool enables half the nodes and disables the rest, prefers the HTTP API but falls back to local directory suffixes, and may require a restart. This is sufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 concise (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without waste.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, process, related tools, fallback mechanism, and potential restart. It is complete enough for an agent to understand usage, though it could mention how to check session status (handled by bisect_status).

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 clearly states the purpose: to begin a binary-search (bisect) session over installed custom nodes to find a problematic node. It differentiates from siblings by being the initiation step, while siblings like bisect_good/bad are for guiding the search.

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 explains when to use this tool (to find which node causes a problem) and how to guide the search with bisect_good/bisect_bad. It also notes that a ComfyUI restart may be needed. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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