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 returns an empty list if the server has no API nodes (or they are disabled) and requires a server-side account/API key. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's function, prerequisites, and one edge case. Minor improvement could include structuring with bullet points, but it's already concise.

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 simple parameter set and no output schema, the description covers core aspects: what is listed, prerequisites (Comfy account/API key), and the empty list case. It lacks details on return format or pagination, but is otherwise complete for a list 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% description coverage for the single optional 'filter' parameter. The tool description does not add any further information about the parameter, so the schema already provides sufficient semantics. Baseline 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 lists hosted partner/API nodes on ComfyUI, with examples (Flux/BFL, Ideogram, Kling, Stability). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_api_node_schema' which retrieves schema for a specific node, ensuring purposeful distinction.

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 usage context by specifying that nodes require a Comfy account/API key and run server-side, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other listing tools (e.g., list_local_models, list_output_images). No alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer.

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