comfy_list_model_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it uses ComfyUI's `/models` endpoint to discover folders live and reports the data source ('live' vs 'fallback'), informing callers about the reliability of the result. This goes beyond annotations and is actionable.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. Two short paragraphs, three sentences, each sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second explains the mechanism, and the third highlights the data source reporting. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple no-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the tool's behavior, the live discovery mechanism, and the fallback reporting, which is crucial for interpreting results. There is no missing information needed to invoke or understand the 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. Per guidelines, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but it is not needed. The description appropriately complements the empty schema by explaining the data source behavior.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('every model-folder name'), and the scope ('the connected ComfyUI exposes'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like comfy_list_models by focusing on folders rather than models themselves. The reference to the `/models` endpoint adds 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 implies when to use this tool (when you need model folder names) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to related tools like comfy_list_models or comfy_list_destinations. The context is clear, but explicit guidance is missing.

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