list_node_pack_files

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only, skips .git/, __pycache__/ and node_modules/, local-only requirement, and path jailing. Also mentions glob filtering and max entry 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence conveys core purpose and behavior. Second sentence provides usage guidance and constraints. Information is front-loaded.

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 covers purpose, usage, behavioral constraints, and parameters. However, it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., list of file paths), which would be helpful. Given no output schema, a brief note on the return type would improve completeness.

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 the default value for max_entries (500) and clarifies that glob supports *, **, ? and matches pack-relative paths, providing extra value 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?

Clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'files in one installed custom-node pack', and the scope 'under <COMFYUI_PATH>/custom_nodes/<pack>/ (read-only)'. Differentiates from siblings by mentioning read_node_file and search_node_packs as alternative tools for different steps.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this to orient before read_node_file / search_node_packs when diagnosing or editing a pack you found via bisect_* or fix_custom_node.' Also provides context: 'LOCAL-ONLY (requires COMFYUI_PATH); the pack name and every returned path are jailed to custom_nodes/.'

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