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 full burden. It discloses the two methods and output limitations, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. It adds value but misses some behavioral context.

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 consists of two front-loaded sentences with no fluff. It directly states the purpose first, then adds critical technical details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the output differences between methods, though it could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., JSON structure). Still, it covers the core behavior well.

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 context about how the useCmCli parameter affects the backend used and output richness (names only vs full info), 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 lists installed ComfyUI custom node packs with version and enabled/disabled state. It specifies the resource and output, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_packs or get_node_pack_details.

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 explains that it uses two backends (HTTP API for remote, cm-cli fallback for local operations) and that the fallback returns limited info (names only). It provides clear context, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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