comfy_inspect_widget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not restate those. It adds value by explaining that results are normalized and V1/V3 transparent, and by clarifying the distinction between widget_inputs (is_link_target=False) and link_inputs. This gives useful behavioral context beyond the safety hints.

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 well-structured with a purpose line followed by explicit 'Returns:' and 'Args:' sections. Every element contributes necessary information without redundancy or filler, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 single-parameter read-only inspection tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return structure in adequate detail. The output schema exists, so deeper return value documentation is unnecessary. It does not mention edge cases like unknown node types, but that is a minor gap for such a tool.

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 schema only provides the parameter name and type; the description adds the line 'node_type: The node type name to inspect' and the return section indicates it expects a class name. This provides some semantic meaning beyond the schema, but it is still relatively terse and could benefit from examples or clarification of what counts as a node type name.

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 explicitly states 'Get widget/input details for a node type' and enumerates the return fields (node_type, inputs, widget_inputs, link_inputs), making the tool's function very clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like comfy_get_node_info by focusing specifically on widget/input details.

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 this tool is for inspecting widget/input details, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as comfy_get_node_info or comfy_list_node_types. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, leaving usage context only implied.

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