comfyui_models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that the operation lists installed model files and that omitting folder lists every folder, but it does not describe output shape or pagination; with the output schema present, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 two short lines plus a compact args section, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter list operation with readOnly annotations and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is listed and how to filter. No prerequisites, side effects, or return-value caveats are necessary.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly: folder gives specific example values and a default behavior, and search specifies case-insensitive substring matching on file names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List installed models,' which unambiguously identifies what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on workflows, jobs, images, and generation, so an agent can select it without inspecting schemas.

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 parameter-level guidance: a closed set of folder examples, 'Omit to list every folder,' and the search filter semantics. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but no sibling offers model listing, so the context is sufficient and no exclusions are needed.

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