comfy_cli

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral disclosure: search_nodes and models_list fall back to live server endpoints when the CLI is absent, models_download is gated on an idle-liveness timeout so a progressing download is never killed, and skills_install/skills_uninstall default to dry-run unless apply=true. It also explains server_restart as stop-followed-by-launch. It does not describe response formats or warn about permanent deletion for models_remove, but the core side effects are transparent.

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?

Although long, the description is dense and efficiently structured with a clear lead sentence followed by action-family bullets. Every clause earns its place — fallback behaviors, defaults, required parameters, and cross-references are packed into crisp statements. No filler or redundancy; each action gets one focused line.

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 is exceptionally complex (26 actions, 31 parameters, no annotations, no output schema). The description covers all actions, required parameters, defaults, and fallback logic comprehensively. However, it does not describe any return values or response shapes for any action, and with no output schema, the description should compensate. This leaves a meaningful gap in completeness for an agent deciding how to interpret results.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter references largely mirror the schema's action-scoped descriptions (e.g., relaunchArgs, relativePath default). It adds some contextual value by grouping parameters under action families, but it does not provide syntax, formats, or constraints beyond the schema. The parameter semantics are fully covered but not enriched by the description.

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+resource: 'Drive the official comfy-cli' for the selected ComfyUI environment. It then enumerates 26 concrete actions across named families, making the tool's scope unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling search_custom_nodes by explicitly noting it searches installed node classes while search_custom_nodes searches installable packs.

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 actionable when-to-use guidance, e.g., 'Call this before local CLI operations when workspace or server routing is uncertain' for status, and it flags fallback behavior when comfy-cli is not installed. It explicitly positions search_nodes as complementing search_custom_nodes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other overlapping siblings like restart_comfyui or list_local_models, leaving some alternatives implicit.

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