comfy_cli_skills

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

The description adds a key behavioral trait by noting that install/uninstall default to dry-run unless apply=true, which enhances safety awareness. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors, such as potential side effects of validate or status, or any dependency on workspace/projectDir for certain actions. With no annotations provided, the description partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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, using two sentences to convey the tool's purpose and a key safety detail. It front-loads the list of actions and skills. However, it could be slightly more structured by aligning actions with the enum values and separating parameter hints.

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 (9 parameters, 6 actions) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain most parameters, differentiate between actions like 'show' and 'status', or describe return values. The mismatch between 'inspect' in description and 'status' in schema further reduces completeness.

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 description lists the actions and mentions the apply parameter (dry-run), but it does not explain the meaning or usage of other parameters like name, path, skills, targets, or scope. Schema description coverage is only 22%, and the description adds minimal additional context for the remaining 78% of parameters, leaving ambiguity for parameter selection.

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 tool manages bundled agent skills with a list of actions (list, show, validate, install, inspect, uninstall) and specifies the skill names. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_skills and read_skill by covering a broader set of operations. However, the description mentions 'inspect' while the enum includes 'status' instead, causing a minor inconsistency.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_skills or read_skill. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context-specific advice, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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