suggest_settings

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 reveals read-only nature, independence from ComfyUI, source of data (local history database populated by workflows), and behavior when no history exists ('returns a 'no history' message').

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 paragraph but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for filters) but remains efficient.

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 and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, filter options, and special cases. It omits detailed output structure but mentions 'ranked list with each combo's reuse count', which is sufficient for a suggestion tool.

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 minimal extra context beyond the schema (e.g., 'full-text search on model/LoRA filenames' is already in schema). It does not provide additional meaning or examples.

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 settings from a local history database, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'generation_stats' by contrasting 'ready-to-apply values' with 'aggregate counts'.

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 explicitly explains when to use (narrow by filters or get top across history), when not to use (no history), and provides an alternative sibling tool ('use generation_stats for aggregate counts'). It also notes it's read-only and works without ComfyUI.

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