suggest_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses read-only nature, independence from ComfyUI, reliance on local generation-history, and return format (ranked list with reuse count or 'no history' message). This provides sufficient behavioral context for an agent.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph. The first sentence states the core action. Each subsequent sentence addresses a key aspect: read-only, filter options, default behavior, return type, and sibling alternative. No wasted words.

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's purpose (suggesting settings from a database), the description covers: what it does, input parameters, default behavior, output format, and when to use an alternative. Despite no output schema, it clearly describes the return format. The absence of pagination details is acceptable for the scope.

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% (all four parameters have descriptions). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the effect of filters ('Narrow results by...') and the behavior with no filter ('returns top settings across all history'). This contextualizes the parameters, earning slightly above 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 tool recommends concrete sampler/scheduler/steps/CFG settings from a local generation-history database. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'generation_stats' by specifying that this returns ready-to-apply values while the other provides aggregate counts. The verb 'Recommend' and resource 'settings' are specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('for ready-to-apply values') and when not to ('use generation_stats for aggregate counts and breakdowns'). It also explains it is read-only and works without a running ComfyUI, and describes how to narrow results by parameters.

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