list_installed_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the HTTP API works against remote instances and that the cm-cli fallback returns only names (less information). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention any authentication or rate limits. The description adds some behavioral context but lacks full transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary information. Every word adds value.

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 two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the two invocation methods and their implications. However, it omits details about the return format (e.g., a list of objects or strings), which could be useful for an agent without an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that using 'useCmCli' affects the output richness (names only vs. version/state). This goes beyond the schema's simple boolean description, earning a higher score.

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 installed ComfyUI custom node packs with version and enabled/disabled state. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'get_node_pack_details' or 'search_custom_nodes', so it loses a point for lack of sibling differentiation.

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 mentions the two methods (HTTP API vs cm-cli) and their differences, implying when to use each (e.g., remote vs local). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given, and there is no guidance on when to use the 'mode' parameter. This is adequate but not proactive.

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