visualize_workflow_hierarchical

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: detecting logical sections, resolving virtual wires, auto-detecting workflow format, and producing three view types. It does not mention any side effects (none expected) or rate limits, but the core behaviors are well-covered.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states core purpose, second adds key details. Information is front-loaded and 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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and output types. It could elaborate on the 'list' or 'summary' output, but the current detail is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 no significant new meaning beyond the schema; it repeats view functionality. Parameters are adequately documented in the schema itself.

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 visualizes large ComfyUI workflows as hierarchical diagrams, detecting sections and resolving virtual wires. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'visualize_workflow' by specifying it's for large workflows and produces multiple view types.

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 recommends use for workflows with 20+ nodes ('Best for workflows with 20+ nodes'). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the recommendation is strong enough to guide an agent.

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