visualize_workflow_hierarchical

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's functionality (detecting sections, resolving wires) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. The visualization nature implies safety, but explicit assurance would improve transparency.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and immediately providing usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 lacks an output schema, so it should fully describe return values. It mentions output types (overview, detail, list) but is vague on format (e.g., whether diagrams are images or Mermaid). The 'summary' view gets more detail, but the diagram outputs are underspecified for a tool with no 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds context on view modes (e.g., 'summary' view for AI ingestion) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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, with specific features like detecting logical sections and resolving virtual wires. It distinguishes from siblings such as 'visualize_workflow' by targeting workflows with 20+ nodes and offering multiple view modes.

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 clear context on when to use the tool ('Best for workflows with 20+ nodes') and explains each view mode's purpose. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like 'visualize_workflow' for smaller workflows, which would strengthen guidance.

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