comfy_extract_schema

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description reinforces this by describing an extraction operation. It adds context about the output structure but does not disclose potential errors or performance characteristics, which is acceptable given the read-only nature.

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, using two short paragraphs to cover purpose and output. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 fully covers the tool's behavior, including both parameter semantics and the distinction between full and summary output. It is sufficient for an agent to know when to call it and what to expect.

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?

Both parameters are described in the tool description: 'workflow' is clearly identified as an API-format workflow dict, and 'summary_only' is explained with its behavior. This compensates for the lack of schema-level 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's function: extracting a controllability/dependency surface from a workflow. It specifies the output in terms of controllable widgets, models, embeddings, and output nodes, distinguishing it from sibling tools that manipulate or execute workflows.

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 implies usage when an agent needs to determine workflow parameters without traversing the graph. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools like comfy_inspect_workflow or comfy_validate_workflow, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over others.

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