list_api_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool queries the server, returns a list or empty list, and requires credential configuration. It doesn't mention side effects or performance, but as a read-only list operation, this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no wasted words. Efficiently provides key details.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return type (list) and the empty case. However, it lacks details on the structure of each node (e.g., id, name, provider). For a list tool, this is mostly complete but could be slightly more explicit.

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 does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description for 'filter', which already explains the matching against class_type, display name, or category. The description reinforces but does not extend.

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 lists hosted partner/API nodes on ComfyUI, gives examples (Flux/BFL, Ideogram, Kling, Stability), and explains the context (external providers requiring account and API key). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_installed_nodes and list_local_models.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to see available API nodes) and implies when it might return empty (if disabled or none). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_api_node_schema.

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