extract_workflow_dependencies

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the mapping process and remote-only behavior well. It does not mention side effects or authorization, but for a read-only analysis, this is sufficient and no contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences: first sentence captures main action, second adds detail on mapping and output, third gives remote context. No wasted words and good front-loading.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers input and output type (installed vs missing). Could optionally describe output structure more, but overall complete for a simple analysis tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the workflow parameter as ComfyUI API format (JSON string or object), which is not explicit in the schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyze a ComfyUI workflow to determine required custom node packs, mapping nodes to packs and reporting installed vs missing. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like install_workflow_dependencies.

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 mentions it works remotely (HTTP only) and mirrors a CLI command, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like install_workflow_dependencies, leaving some ambiguity.

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