verify_custom_node

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: restarts ComfyUI, waits for ready, checks /object_info for class_types, explains failure modes (missing dependency, syntax error), and the effect of restart parameter. No contradictions.

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 that efficiently covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavior. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and context, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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, no annotations, and 3 parameters, the description is self-sufficient. It explains the tool's role in a loop, local-only requirement, parameter usage, behavior, and interpretation of results. The agent has all needed info to decide and use the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond schema: explains logic for inferring class_types from name, precedence of class_types, and the purpose of restart (checking live server). This enriches parameter understanding greatly.

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 tests that a custom-node pack loads in ComfyUI, positions it as the middle step of a three-step loop (scaffold → verify → publish), and uses specific verbs like 'test' and 'check' with a clear resource ('custom-node pack'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools.

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool (after scaffold, before publish) and provides guidance on parameter choices (class_types vs name, restart flag). It also states the local-only requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, though the context is clear enough.

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