comfy_get_model_info

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

The description adds transparency by clarifying that the tool returns input/output definitions from ComfyUI's object_info and not model file metadata. This complements the readOnly and idempotent annotations without contradicting them. It gives extra context about the nature of the returned data and scope.

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 and well-structured: a clear title, a clarifying sentence, and an Args section with a precise parameter description. It conveys all necessary information without unnecessary verbosity or 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 adequately covers the tool's behavior and return value (input/output definition) and distinguishes it from model metadata. While it does not detail output schema or error cases, the existence of an output schema in the MCP definition reduces the need for that explanation. It is sufficiently complete for a simple getter.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the sole parameter 'node_type' with an example ('CheckpointLoaderSimple') and clarifies that it is the node class type to inspect. Although the schema only defines the parameter name and type, the description provides full semantic meaning, effectively covering the parameter's purpose and expected value.

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 purpose: 'Get node schema for a model-related node type.' It explicitly distinguishes from model file metadata, making it specific and unambiguous. This differentiates it from sibling tools like comfy_get_node_info or comfy_list_node_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 implies usage for retrieving node schemas of model-related nodes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as comfy_get_node_info. It lacks direct comparison or 'use this when' guidance, though the mention of 'not model file metadata' provides some boundary.

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