visualize_workflow_hierarchical

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

The description discloses key behaviors such as detecting logical sections, resolving virtual wires, and producing different output formats. It is clear that the tool is read-only and non-destructive, which is appropriate for a visualization tool.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a final recommendation. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently adds detail without any 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?

The description covers the main aspects: purpose, views, and usage context. However, it could be more explicit about the output format (e.g., whether it returns an image or text) and the 'summary' view's exact structure. Overall, it is fairly complete for a visualization tool with a well-documented schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it visualizes a ComfyUI workflow as a hierarchical diagram, specifically for large workflows, and distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., visualize_workflow) by mentioning 'hierarchical' and '20+ nodes'.

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 a usage guideline ('Best for workflows with 20+ nodes') and outlines different views (overview, detail, list, summary) with brief explanations. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool.

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