list_extra_paths

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait. It also notes that it reports generic categories, making model categories and custom_nodes entries visible when present. Without annotations, these details provide sufficient transparency for a simple read tool.

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific details. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns (generic categories, including model and custom_nodes entries) and the two config paths. Without an output schema, this is adequately complete for a simple list tool, though it could mention possible empty results.

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 explaining the auto logic for the target parameter and the file locations (standalone uses extra_model_paths.yaml, Desktop uses extra_models_config.yaml), which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 views extra search-path config, distinguishes between standalone and Desktop installs, and mentions it is read-only. This provides a specific verb-resource pair that differentiates it from sibling tools like add_extra_path or remove_extra_path.

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 for viewing config (e.g., 'View ComfyUI extra search-path config') but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it compared to siblings. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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