comfyui_workflow_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral detail about the output scope: friendly params and every node's literal inputs. It does not describe error behavior for invalid workflow references, but that burden is partly reduced by the output schema and read-only annotation.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence states the action and resource, then adds a precise parenthetical explaining the input naming convention. There is no filler and every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and the relationship to comfyui_run is clear. However, the unspecified `workflow` parameter format leaves an invocation gap that could prevent an agent from calling the tool correctly, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain what the `workflow` parameter accepts, but it only reuses the word "workflow" without clarifying whether it is an ID, a file path, a workflow name, or a JSON payload. Since this is the only required parameter, the lack of semantic guidance is a significant gap.

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 names a specific action, "Show", and a specific resource: a workflow's friendly params and every node's literal inputs. It also explicitly links the output to comfyui_run's `params`/`inputs` mechanism, which distinguishes it from the mutation/execution 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?

It clearly implies when to use the tool: before running or modifying a workflow via comfyui_run, since it tells you what can be changed and how to reference inputs. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or name alternative tools, but the use context is unambiguous.

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