search_custom_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only, network-only, HTTP-based, no local ComfyUI dependency, client-side ranking of a fixed window, and automatic fallback to exact registry ID when no keyword match. It also details the two action modes (search vs details) and their respective behaviors, going well beyond a simple 'search' label.

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 substantial but well-organized: front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by key constraints, then a structured breakdown of the two actions. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the action parameter is clearly explained with examples. Despite its length, it avoids redundancy and is easy to scan.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values for both actions: search returns a ranked list with specific fields (id, name, author, install count, latest version), and details returns full pack info including node types and changelogs. It also covers prerequisites (network-only, no local ComfyUI) and points to related tools, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the action workflow (search first, then pass id to details), the relationship between query and id, and the meaning of pagination defaults. This extra context raises the score above the baseline.

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 action: 'Discover ComfyUI custom node PACKS in the public ComfyUI Registry' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding models (download_model) and local installs (list_local_models), making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Read-only and network-only... does NOT require a running ComfyUI or COMFYUI_PATH'. It names alternatives for models and local installs, and instructs to use install_custom_node for installing or managing packs, offering clear decision paths.

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