get_node_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: requires a reachable ComfyUI instance, results are server-dependent, and the tool returns summarized data when more than 20 node types match, asking for a narrower filter. It does not mention authentication or rate limits but covers the main behavioral nuance.

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 and well-structured: first sentence states the primary purpose, followed by requirements, usage advice, and threshold behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers both the input and the expected output behavior (full definitions vs. summarized list based on threshold). It provides sufficient context for an agent to decide how and when to invoke the 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter. The description adds valuable semantics: 'case-insensitive substring match' and 'Omit to list all available nodes', which go beyond the schema and help the agent use the parameter correctly.

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 queries a ComfyUI server's /object_info endpoint for installed node type definitions, specifying the verb 'query' and the resource 'node type definitions'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on server-side node definitions rather than workflow-level node operations.

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 explicit usage context: use the node_type filter to inspect a specific node before composing or modifying a workflow. It also explains the threshold behavior (20 nodes) and how the tool responds, guiding the agent on when to narrow the filter. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives.

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