comfy_get_node_info

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behaviorcars. The description adds transparency about the output payload (NodeSchema shape, schema_version, is_output_node) and clarifies the input constraint. Since annotations cover safety, the additional output detail is valuable, though it does not mention any potential side effects (which are likely none given read-only hint).

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—two short paragraphs. The first states purpose and output structure; the second clarifies the parameter. It avoids redundancy with the schema but does repeat the parameter name in an Args block, which is minor overhead. Overall clean and efficient.

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 covers the key behavioral aspects: what it returns (detailed node info, output structure), and the only parameter. It aligns with the read-only annotations. It doesn't mention pagination or performance, but that's not necessary for a single-node lookup. Adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 single parameter node_type is clearly defined in the Args section: 'The node type name to get info for.' Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly documents the parameter, so the agent understands what to provide. No ambiguity or missing constraints.

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 detailed normalized info about a specific node type.' It specifies the exact resource (node type) and the action (get info), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, search, and inspect by emphasizing detailed normalized information with a specific output shape.

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 a single node type but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like comfy_list_node_types or comfy_search_nodes. It provides no exclusion criteria or direct comparison to siblings, though the specificity of 'get detailed info' offers some implicit guidance.

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