extract_workflow_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It details the mapping process using ComfyUI-Manager and installed definitions, and reports installed vs. missing packs. It notes the remote-only nature and similarity to a CLI command. However, it does not mention side effects (likely none), error conditions, or authentication requirements.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence adds distinct information: purpose, mapping process, and remote/CLI note. It is slightly wordy but still efficient. Front-loading the action and resource is effective.

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 description explains what the tool does and the format of its output (installed vs missing packs) but does not specify the exact output structure (e.g., list of pack names with status). With no output schema, this lack of detail could cause ambiguity. Sibling tools like 'get_node_pack_details' might fill gaps, but the description should be self-contained.

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 single parameter 'workflow' is fully described in the schema as a JSON string or object in API format. The description reiterates this but adds no new constraints or format details beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing a ComfyUI workflow to determine required custom node packs. It specifies the input type, mapping process, and distinguishes from the CLI mirror command. The verb 'analyze' and resource 'workflow dependencies' are specific, and the mention of 'extract' in the name is reinforced.

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 implies the tool is for determining dependencies without installing them, and mentions it works remotely via HTTP. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'install_workflow_dependencies' (which installs) or 'analyze_workflow' (broader analysis). No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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