get_api_node_schema

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

With no annotations, the description discloses what the tool returns (visible inputs with types/defaults/options, hidden inputs, and outputs). It lacks details on error handling or side effects, but the simple nature of the query makes these omissions acceptable.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by relevant details. Ideal length for a single-parameter tool.

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 single parameter, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, its prerequisite, and the nature of its output. Minor omission: no mention of whether the data is cached or real-time, but not critical for this 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% (class_type with example value). The description adds context by explaining the parameter's origin (from list_api_nodes) and its role, going beyond the schema definition.

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 it returns the input schema for a specific API/partner node, lists visible inputs, hidden inputs, and outputs, and references the source (ComfyUI's /object_info). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_api_nodes by recommending using that tool first.

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?

Explicitly advises to use list_api_nodes first to find a class_type, providing clear when-to-use guidance. This differentiates it from other tools and sets context for correct invocation.

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