comfy_list_installed_nodes

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses exact return shapes for success, failure, and missing binary scenarios. It also explains line_count==0 semantics and the API preference logic, giving comprehensive behavioral expectations.

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 dense but well-organized with clear sections for overview, args, and returns. Every sentence contributes value—no fluff or redundancy—and the formatting makes it easy to parse.

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 all relevant scenarios: success with different line counts, failure with return codes, and error with install hints. It also explains parameter behavior and edge cases, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without further clarification.

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?

Each parameter is explained in the Args section with defaults and behavior, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. The explanation of prefer_manager_api as trying /v2/customnode/installed first is particularly actionable.

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 'List custom-node packages' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like comfy_list_extensions and comfy_list_node_types. The additional mention of preferring the live Manager V2 API adds method-level specificity.

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 explains when to use Manager V2 vs comfy-cli fallback, and when each is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools among the siblings, but the scope is unambiguous and the fallback guidance is helpful for context selection.

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