comfy_list_blueprints

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: user blueprints shadow bundled ones on name collision, and native entries are tagged with source: 'native'. This helps an agent anticipate result composition.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a compact source list and two relevant behavioral notes. Every sentence adds information not already present in the schema or annotations.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter interface and rich annotations, the description is complete: it covers all source options, the default value, name-collision behavior, and native tagging. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-format details is not a gap.

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 defines a single source parameter with no enum values and 0% description coverage. The tool description fully compensates by defining each valid value ('all', 'user', 'bundled', 'native'), their meanings, and the default behavior, plus the COMFY_BLUEPRINT_DIR association.

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: 'List subgraph blueprints from the configured sources.' It is specific about the object (subgraph blueprints) and the source-filtering behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like comfy_list_models or comfy_list_extensions.

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 gives a clear usage context by enumerating the four source options and the default 'all' behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the source-filtering semantics make it evident when this tool is appropriate.

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